# 1 word synonyms of phrases



## caters (Jan 21, 2016)

Now it may sound like I am talking about synonyms of the word phrases from the title but really I am talking about synonyms of things like said lovingly.

I am editing Life on Kepler Bb chapter by chapter and I am adding more to it. I know that a thesaurus is really good for finding synonyms and antonyms and that a dictionary is good to have on hand for finding the definitions of those(and some dictionaries have synonyms and their definitions also like the World Book Dictionary by Thorndike Barnhart).

However I have noticed that a thesaurus usually only works for single words and not for phrases like said lovingly.

So if I am wanting a synonym that has just 1 word of any given phrase, how should I go about it?

Here is an example where I may want a 1 word synonym of a phrase:

Robin said "We have survived all these years without a shelter but now we really need one."

Lisa said lovingly "But why do we need a shelter? If we were able to survive all these years without a shelter then there is no reason why we couldn't survive without a shelter with children."

Robin said "That may be but it is often better to be cautious"

The phrase here where I might want a synonym of it with just 1 word is said lovingly. I know that embrace has to do with love but that is more physical rather than verbal.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 21, 2016)

'emoted' might fit, but what is wrong with two words? They tend to be simpler, two cent words, preferable to one ten cent word in most cases.


----------



## caters (Jan 21, 2016)

I am not saying anything is wrong with two words. It is just that the more unfamiliar words there are, the faster the reader's vocabulary will expand.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 21, 2016)

This is something I think about alot, because, let's face it, "said lovingly" sounds ... a bit blah, doesn't it? 

Think about the character doing the saying. The word you choose will help portray _them _and sketch them out. With that in mind I sometimes pick a word, any word, that captures the concept of lovingness as performed by that person, and turn it into a verb if it isn't, so:

"Bob," Alice said lovingly, "your beard looks extra bushy tonight!"

Could be ->

"Bob," Alice purred, "your beard bristles most bushily this night!"

Or even ->

"Bob," Alice breathed, "have you daubed some love oils into your beard?"

There's no limit, though of course sometimes the result can be unutterable rubbish; eg:

"Bob," Alice catted, "your ... your beard!" 

The point there being that sometimes you have to venture outside of the word class to get what you are after.

Additionally if you want to portray someone saying something lovingly, think about their body language and/or internal dialogue, depending on PoV. Their eyes may bat. Their pupils may dilate. Their lips may part, just a half-inch. they may perceive a certain scent, redolent of some long-gone time. They might lean in close as they make their utterance. So use that. Use body language, in place of verbal speech tags in some cases. I blogged recently elsewhere about some sort of body language dictionary and how useful it would be, but really this just comes from experience and observation of people and their behaviours.

"Bob." Alice leaned close, running a finger down his tie. The scent of musk and engine-oil caused a little flutter somewhere near her heart. "Please have a shave."


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 21, 2016)

"Cooed" would fairly exactly fit what you're looking for here, but honestly I don't find "said lovingly" to be offensive. If you moved it to after the dialogue it would read more smoothly.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 21, 2016)

caters said:


> I am not saying anything is wrong with two words. It is just that the more unfamiliar words there are, the faster the reader's vocabulary will expand.



It sounds like you're trying to expand your own vocabulary at the same time (particularly given your earlier statement about needing a dictionary to find out what the synonym and antonyms mean), which is a dangerous thing to do.  There's a good chance you'll come across as someone doing exactly what you are - using words you don't know and hoping they fit.  Vocabulary is improved by reading sentences where the obscure words are used intentionally and with purpose, rather than simply because they're a different form of a more common word.

As for the "said lovingly" question, I don't feel there's anything wrong with that.  People who are against "-ly" adverbs tend to be against "said" substitutes as well - ironically missing the point of their minimalism as they use a sentence of words to say what you did in one.  Keep it.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 21, 2016)

Why does it need to be said "lovingly"? She's talking about a shelter, not her feelings for the man.

"Replied" works fine, doesn't get in the way, and her words should expose her tone well enough. To me, I raised a brow at "lovingly". How much does she love the idea of not having a shelter?


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 21, 2016)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> As for the "said lovingly" question, I don't feel there's anything wrong with that.  People who are against "-ly" adverbs tend to be against "said" substitutes as well - ironically missing the point of their minimalism as they use a sentence of words to say what you did in one.  Keep it.



I wouldn't say I'm against -ly adverbs, I just think it is a bit of an easy way out and as such can make for rather mediocre writing if the writer relies on only it. There is a place for them, but if you find yourself substituting actions, spoken words, the characters, the world, the story, all of that, with them - particularly in the name of stuff like word count - the writing may grow a little bare. And "said" substitutes? I have a bunch up top. Wish I'd thought of "cooed" though... 

_he mumbled pseudo-knowledgeably, _or:_ he said with a sage nod, surrounded by swirling vapours..._


----------



## Patrick (Jan 21, 2016)

Weight of voice doesn't come from finding lots of synonyms for average adverbs.

What you want to do instead is wage a war on cliche and only include phrases such as, "she walked to the wardrobe," and, "she said lovingly," to give your reader a rest from the weightier stuff. There's nothing wrong with using them occasionally, but you need to be in the habit of observing everything with a scalpel and writing about what things are really like, because cliches are often lazy observations.


----------



## caters (Jan 21, 2016)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> It sounds like you're trying to expand your own vocabulary at the same time (particularly given your earlier statement about needing a dictionary to find out what the synonym and antonyms mean), which is a dangerous thing to do.  There's a good chance you'll come across as someone doing exactly what you are - using words you don't know and hoping they fit.  Vocabulary is improved by reading sentences where the obscure words are used intentionally and with purpose, rather than simply because they're a different form of a more common word.
> 
> As for the "said lovingly" question, I don't feel there's anything wrong with that.  People who are against "-ly" adverbs tend to be against "said" substitutes as well - ironically missing the point of their minimalism as they use a sentence of words to say what you did in one.  Keep it.




How is expanding your vocabulary dangerous, especially for someone with great long term memory like me? If I forget what a certain word means but I know the spelling, I can easily look up the definition for it and the memory will become stronger than it was before.

As for why I have the said lovingly there it is because at this point in the story Robin and Lisa have found each other and Lisa starts to fall in love with Robin.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 21, 2016)

bdcharles said:


> This is something I think about alot, because, let's face it, "said lovingly" sounds ... a bit blah, doesn't it?


What did Smokey Robinson say?
I Second that Emotion.
Ufff.
The debate about LY adverbs is one that I'd rather not get into.  Defending them is like defending bad writing, showing over telling etc.  It's inane.
Finding a sneaky way to get that information in without using the common LY adverb is the same.  Just don't do it.  
If you want to put your thesaurus to good use, look up NEVER ... how many ways can you say that?  That's how often you should go down this path.
Don't describe the feeling.  Give us an action, even scratching the head or looking away that transmits the emotion you want to describe.  
Telling and Adverbs go together into the delete bin.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Jigawatt (Jan 21, 2016)

I agree. Modifiers do not belong in dialog tags. Just tell me who's talking. To do more than that, you risk annoying me. There isn't even a point in saying, he shouted, she cried. Watch:

"Why do you want to spend money on a stupid shed?!" said Shirley.
"Well," said Bob. "If an asteroid smacks into our house, we'll have another place to stay."
"That's ridiculous! Besides, I thought we were saving for a new car."
"We can afford both. How would you like it if something happened to the house and you had the rain and the sun in your face?"
Shirley raised her hand and squeezed her fingers into a fist. "How would you like the smack of this in your face?"

I'm not saying dialog tags can't be done with modifiers, or verbs describing emotion. But you're rolling the dice with readers like me. Am I a minority? Maybe, maybe not.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 21, 2016)

If you've read widely enough, you'll know there's no harm whatsoever in using adverbs that end in ly. When used sparingly, they absolutely do enrich the text in an understated uncomplicated way. If somebody as meticulous as James Joyce uses them, it leads one to think there are some good reasons for their inclusion. If you remove them entirely, you end up overwriting everything, and the text becomes dry.

Extreme positions on adjectives and adverbs are ridiculous; such positions are of no practical use. Good dialogue makes use (occasionally) of them because good dialogue is often quite understated and nuanced, just like real conversation. Not everything is as telegraphed as, "Do you want a smack on the nose, mate?"


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 21, 2016)

Like always it depends on context, now I have a Mills and Boon contract I try and make up at least three new 'ly' words a day


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 22, 2016)

Patrick said:


> If you've read widely enough, you'll know there's no harm whatsoever in using adverbs that end in ly. When used sparingly, they absolutely do enrich the text in an understated uncomplicated way. If somebody as meticulous as James Joyce uses them, it leads one to think there are some good reasons for their inclusion. If you remove them entirely, you end up overwriting everything, and the text becomes dry.
> 
> Extreme positions on adjectives and adverbs are ridiculous; such positions are of no practical use. Good dialogue makes use (occasionally) of them because good dialogue is often quite understated and nuanced, just like real conversation. Not everything is as telegraphed as, "Do you want a smack on the nose, mate?"



Disagree.  Take a high stance against them.  Accept the few that sneak in anyway.  Like Terrorists.  Can't get rid of them all but I'm not about to embrace them.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 23, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Disagree.  Take a high stance against them.  Accept the few that sneak in anyway.  Like Terrorists.  Can't get rid of them all but I'm not about to embrace them.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



Well...according to your stand against the use of 'ly' words, Terry Pratchett was pretty much just a hack. He, along with many other popular writers, didn't shy away from using them. Did he use them exclusively or to excess? No. Do the great writers do either of those? No. 

Saying that someone should avoid using adverbs at all costs, which is what the newest "rule" of writing seems to be, is patently absurd. Those words are in the English language for a reason. People use them every day in normal conversation. There is no reason they should be avoided in writing.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 23, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Disagree.  Take a high stance against them.  Accept the few that sneak in anyway.  Like Terrorists.  Can't get rid of them all but I'm not about to embrace them.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



Denying yourself a tool is not a way to improve as a writer. Rather than having them slip in as terrorists, why not sit them down and interview them. Keep the ones that do the work you want them to and reject those that don't. If you find a concise and better way to write the description, then do that.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 23, 2016)

"Said lovingly" reads a bit bare, to me. In this instance, I'd recommend showing, rather than telling. Unpacking, instead of simplifying. Expanding these two words into something more, instead of trying to boil them down into a single word.

_How_ did Lisa say this lovingly? Did she wink? Did she muss Robin's hair with her hands? Did she hop on a tricycle and start juggling knives?

How much you expand this is your call. But, for me, reading a story is all about the experience. "Said lovingly" doesn't really give me much to experience, other than an extremely basic (and highly interpretive) guess at Lisa's tone of voice.

But if you show she acts, or describe how she sounds, or anything, really, beyond the bare minimum—then you've improved the reading experience for me, just a bit.

And again, for me, the story's all about the experience.

See *bdcharles*' post (#4) for some great examples. :encouragement:


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 23, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Saying that someone should avoid using adverbs at all costs, which is what the newest "rule" of writing seems to be, is patently absurd. Those words are in the English language for a reason. People use them every day in normal conversation. There is no reason they should be avoided in writing.



I suppose I should have clarified for the literal minded.  What happens in dialogue stays in dialogue.  Rules don't apply .... nor do suggestions or recomendations or standards or trends.  It either sounds like dialogue or it doesn't.  So yeah, adverbs and adjectives are OK there.  

Narration ... a whole other issue.  I avoid.  Allow occassionally.
Dialogue Tags?  Never allow.  
Of course there are different classes of adverbs.  There are those of frequency and those that describe situation or condition.  Who knows what other types there are???? 
I just know that when I read crappy prose, it often includes useless words such as adverbs and adjectives that are trying to shore up weak prose.  
It's a preference .... not a rule.
Just happens to be a preference of thousands of writers who have written thousands of web blogs on it.  Stephen KING?  A whole chapter in his book 'On Writing'  These folks can see beyond the vision of it as a RULE and realize that there is that 1% situation where it doesn't detract.

And yes, you could open a Stephen King novel right now and find an adverb in seconds.  So he avoids, removes and deletes as many as possible on edit mode .... maybe 1% stay in.  Exactly what I'm saying.  

But you guys go ahead, splatter those adverbs and adjectives all over the damn place .... hell don't even give it another thought .... better yet, if a word DOESN"t end with LY, I suggest ADDING LY .... a new renaissance in adverbs ... headlong against the preference of the average reader, literary agents and popular wisdom.  Into the breach I say.  
Arriba, Arriba ANDALE!  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 23, 2016)

I understand what you mean, DGB.

But I know I am not the only one who takes things in a literal way. That is why I normally try to get more clarification when I see statements such as yours. A new writer who has the same kind of analyzing mind as me could very well run into a lot of trouble trying to keep their writing within the strict standards and rules some would see set out for them.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 24, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Just happens to be a preference of thousands of writers who have written thousands of web blogs on it.  Stephen KING?  A whole chapter in his book 'On Writing'  These folks can see beyond the vision of it as a RULE and realize that there is that 1% situation where it doesn't detract.
> 
> And yes, you could open a Stephen King novel right now and find an adverb in seconds.  So he avoids, removes and deletes as many as possible on edit mode .... maybe 1% stay in.  Exactly what I'm saying.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



Right. The 8th word in King's _Revival _is an adverb (_really_).

The first paragraph of King's rant against using adverbs in _On Writing_ contains _usually_, _usually_, _not_, _seriously_, _usually_, _clearly_, and _not_. Apparently King has no awareness of when he is using an adverb.

And King admits it's okay to use adverbs if they help communicate meaning, which puts adverbs in the same category as everything else.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 24, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I suppose I should have clarified for the literal minded.  What happens in dialogue stays in dialogue.  Rules don't apply .... nor do suggestions or recomendations or standards or trends.  It either sounds like dialogue or it doesn't.  So yeah, adverbs and adjectives are OK there.
> 
> Narration ... a whole other issue.  I avoid.  Allow occassionally.
> Dialogue Tags?  Never allow.
> ...



Just bear in mind that most literary agents don't know what they like until they read it. There are agents who are snobs and pretend to understand the craft of writing better than they do, and there a lot who aren't and will acknowledge that there are no snobby rules regarding adverbs and adjectives. It's very important inexperienced writers understand this. By the time you, inexperienced writer, have written half a million words, you will have more of a feel for voice, technique and plot than most agents. The agents who you want to represent you, are those who are humble enough to understand they are not great students of the craft (this is what the writer is supposed to be), and the proper relationship between writer and agent is that of complementary alliance; you have your skillset, and she has her's. An agent who is of this ilk can offer great suggestions because they truly want what's best for your novel.

An agent who only understands a minimalist approach to writing is demonstrating her own ignorance by arbitrarily sneering at every adverb and adjective. This is just not helpful criticism, and writers need to develope a little bit of confidence in their own working knowledge of the craft, working being the operative word. To not do so would be the equivalent of listening to an observer of martial arts, but not a practitioner of the thing, explaining that in sword play you should NEVER spin or do anything which might be considered at all flashy. It's completely useless advice. Though they will be very few, there will be moments when somebody has to spin in order to parry and move away from their opponent's blade. In any craft, a rigid set of rules is just going to constrain the artist.

You have to use the tools you have available to you to the absolute best of your ability, and any decent literary agent who you'd like to represent you will understand this and sympathise with you. Writing is not the result of matter in motion, so there aren't any actual rules. We have principles to guide us. The expectations of a reader and an agent are important, but there is a great deal of room for agents and readers alike to be pleasantly surprised by the writer. A writer can't produce anything of worth without freeing herself from the mind-forged manacles.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 24, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Narration ... a whole other issue.  I avoid.  Allow occassionally.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



What is special about 'occasionally' and not all the other 'ly words?


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 24, 2016)

Wow.  
Let's clarify.
We are talking about prose here as in narration and dramatic fiction as compared to non-fiction, (which On Writing is) right?  


> The first paragraph of King's rant against using adverbs in _On Writing contains usually, usually, not, seriously, usually,clearly, and not. Apparently King has no awareness of when he is using an adverb._



(Kudos on the peanuts it takes to critisize and doubt Mr. King's ability to recognize an adverb)

I don't think the LY adverbs are going to knock the spunk out of a zesty manual on the use and maintanence of self sealing stem bolts.  So like I said, non-fiction?  Different criteria.  



> What is special about 'occasionally' and not all the other 'ly words?


Equally, conversation is a whole other animal.  Which these posts are .... they are conversations between members written on a forum.  Irrelevant.  

And as I said earlier .... I certainly hope that the vast majority of new writers out there sprinkle adverbs and adjectives all throughout their work.  I advise against it in a whole hearted attempt to support the dream of someday seeing one's book on the bestseller's list.  But .... please do go against the consensus.  There's too much competition already.

But let's take it one step further.  Prove the thousands naysayers wrong.  Post a wonderful piece full of adverbs and adjectives.  I'd like to see the story in which a well placed adverb, time after time, kicks a strong verb's butt.  I mean really, put your money where your mouth is.  Seems like everyone here, seeing as we are all writers in some sense of the word, have the ability to argue a point ... valid or not .... but I say bring it on.  Amaze. 

As a final thought ... I don't have the cash to pay an editor so I write, rewrite, twist and turn sentences time and again.  Somewhere along the line I run my chapters through https://prowritingaid.com just to see if this mechanical editor draws my attention to something I have missed.  It often catches that I have used a particular word too many times, have used cliches or passive voice etc.  Isn't avoiding LY adverbs just the same thing?  Wouldn't using too many or too much of anything be a buzz kill to the spontaneity of your prose?  

In conclusion - Kill the majority of adverbs (my arguement) vs. a well placed adverb can have merit (the opposing arguement) is about the same thing.  WF??? WTF???

David Gordon Burke


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 24, 2016)

The Discworld series sold millions of book. Every one a best seller. Yet, they have plenty of adverbs and the like. Stephen King sold hundreds of millions of book that had adverbs throughout. Dean Koontz likewise. 

I'm not entirely sure how you are being logical in saying that avoiding the adverbs gives a work a better shot at the best seller lists. 

Once again, I am being literal. 

If you are saying to minimize the use of then when possible, that's one thing. Saying that a writer's work suffers if they aren't avoided altogether is just silly. For a reader here or there, that may apply. For a readership in general, they simply don't care.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 25, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Wow.
> Let's clarify.
> We are talking about prose here as in narration and dramatic fiction as compared to non-fiction, (which On Writing is) right?



In non-fiction, as in fiction, one should be effective in his or her writing.  If adverbs really hinder writing, they would hinder it across the board.  After all, what's the difference between "It was very important he disarm the bomb" in a work of fiction and "It is very important to write clearly" in a writing manual?

In fact, I just noticed I used the adverb "clearly" in my example there.  But is that really so much weaker than "It is important to write in a clear manner," regardless of the format you're writing in?


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 25, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:
			
		

> Wouldn't using too many or too much of anything be a buzz kill to the spontaneity of your prose?


That's generally true. Though, be careful—intentionally avoiding the use of something can also have a negative effect on the prose.

I remember spending a lot of time scrubbing adjectives and adverbs (and other things) from a first-person story I wrote a few years ago. My thought process reflected the thoughts of many newer writers: "I must avoid using adjectives and adverbs at all costs! Avoid cliches! Avoid passive voice! Avoid short sentences! Avoid long sentences! Avoid medium-length sentences! Look both ways before crossing the street! Wait half an hour after eating before going in the water! By doing so, my writing will be better!"

Except . . . my narrator spoke in a certain way, and the more I tried to adhere to all the guidelines I'd come across, the more unnatural (and forced) my narrator's voice became.

Along the way I decided to abandon generic writing advice, and my narrator's idiosyncratic voice returned with a flourish. 

From that I learned: sometimes the requirements of your writing will supersede any advice you've encountered about how to write well—even if the advice comes from successful editors or authors.

Most especially, if you're writing subjective third (or first), where the narration reflects the voice of your POV character, I recommend focusing on the voice itself, and not letting yourself be restricted by any "rules" that get in the way, or tell you to write otherwise. After all, characters don't always think or narrate with perfect grammar, or with pretty prose.

Sometimes you want the narration to read ugly, or the language to seem choppy, or the prose to feel all wrong. A lot depends on what you're trying to achieve—and blanket guidelines don't always allow wiggle room for these kinds of things.

So I say: go with what you want, really—whether that includes adjectives and adverbs or not. You'll learn along the way what works for you or doesn't. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 25, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Post a wonderful piece full of adverbs and adjectives.  I'd like to see the story in which a well placed adverb, time after time, kicks a strong verb's butt.  I mean really, put your money where your mouth is.  Seems like everyone here, seeing as we are all writers in some sense of the word, have the ability to argue a point ... valid or not .... but I say bring it on.  Amaze.
> 
> In conclusion - Kill the majority of adverbs (my arguement) vs. a well placed adverb can have merit (the opposing arguement) is about the same thing.



I think we are starting to agree -- there are a lot of potential problems with adverbs. I assume you don't mind an innocuous adverb. My book starts:


> I vaguely remember shooting that guy.



I am guessing you don't like the dramatic adverb:


> We are gruesomely fascinated with sex.



But to me, that's a powerful adverb. I have trouble thinking of them, and I'm proud of myself when I do.

I am guessing you strongly object to:


> Surprisingly, shockingly, the Deacon barked a laugh.



I don't see the problem, but I can see some people not liking it.

I don't like:


> ...he said professorially



It sounds like Tom Swift to me. But I can't criticize: It's one word doing a big job.

(quotes from King, Simmons, and Clancy)


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 25, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> If you are saying to minimize the use of then when possible, that's one thing.


That's exactly what I have said throughout.  
How do I go about doing that ??? By killing them off on sight during editing.  
If I cannot find a better way to say what I said with the adverb, I leave it.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 25, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> I think we are starting to agree -- there are a lot of potential problems with adverbs. I assume you don't mind an innocuous adverb. My book starts:
> 
> 
> I am guessing you don't like the dramatic adverb:
> ...



Another 'take everything 100% literaly' 

IMHO the first two options are pretty good on their own.  Vaguely, Gruesomely are concepts hard to cover with another word.  
The next two are not to my liking but could maybe work within an overall context ... who knows?

But am I to understand that you are giving me lines of text from King, Simmons and Clancy?  Hmmmm.  That's a cheat.
Put your money ... not someone else's ... where your mouth is.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 26, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> That's exactly what I have said throughout.
> How do I go about doing that ??? By killing them off on sight during editing.
> If I cannot find a better way to say what I said with the adverb, I leave it.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



Fair enough. As I said, I only took things as literally as I did because of a desire for clarification for newer writers who may be getting bogged down by all the rules, some spoken, some not, set forth by seemingly everyone. 

I have found myself in that position and it sucks. That's why, at this point, I pretty much ignore the rules and write what the heck I want. The ones that do get followed are done by accident. It seems to be working out OK for me so far, though.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 26, 2016)

To me it seems that adverbs cover a lot - a lot of time, a lot of events, a lot of space, and so on, typically at quite some psychic distance. In a way they're a kind of shorthand. If I am setting a scene, I might say something like "The city had recently seen many conflicts, arising out of the such-and-such Party which was slowly ascending to power." It's like a camera's distance shot, and that sentence could conceivably be distilled down into its own story. We are not in any one person's head but just doing a little world-building. But once I zoom in, I try and depict things by relatable details, so when I see things like "he said disgustedly", it's quite vague. I want to see his lip pull back from his teeth and his face grimace as if something foul resided there. Yes, I could supply those things mentally myself by the content of the dialogue just as well, but either way, the clunker of an ~ly word trips me up and yanks me right out of the tale. It lets me know I am being told a story, and perhaps a rather hastily-written one at that (or perhaps I should say: one that was written as though the invading hordes were bearing down on its writer that very instant  )

On the other hand, less obtrusive words such as "quickly", "slowly", "clearly" and so on don't carry so much load and are almost invisible so cause less fuss. They can also add voice - whereby the narration is in the style of a person perceiving events. At the end of the day it comes down to using the best word for what you want to do.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 26, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Fair enough. As I said, I only took things as literally as I did because of a desire for clarification for newer writers who may be getting bogged down by all the rules, some spoken, some not, set forth by seemingly everyone.
> 
> I have found myself in that position and it sucks. That's why, at this point, I pretty much ignore the rules and write what the heck I want. The ones that do get followed are done by accident. It seems to be working out OK for me so far, though.



I used the term RULE as did others in this thread.
Truthfully, if a person reads and writes and then writes some more, then comes here and sees the word RULE and gets his shorts into a knot???
Not much hope for a person like that as a writer.  
I mean what did someone figure?  The Prose Police were going to show up at the door and go upside a writer´s head for using an adverb¿
He wrote four consecutive sentences that began with ´I´ ... Off with his head.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 26, 2016)

bdcharles said:


> To me it seems that adverbs cover a lot - a lot of time, a lot of events, a lot of space, and so on, typically at quite some psychic distance. In a way they're a kind of shorthand. If I am setting a scene, I might say something like "The city had recently seen many conflicts, arising out of the such-and-such Party which was slowly ascending to power." It's like a camera's distance shot, and that sentence could conceivably be distilled down into its own story. We are not in any one person's head but just doing a little world-building. But once I zoom in, I try and depict things by relatable details, so when I see things like "he said disgustedly", it's quite vague. I want to see his lip pull back from his teeth and his face grimace as if something foul resided there. Yes, I could supply those things mentally myself by the content of the dialogue just as well, but either way, the clunker of an ~ly word trips me up and yanks me right out of the tale. It lets me know I am being told a story, and perhaps a rather hastily-written one at that (or perhaps I should say: one that was written as though the invading hordes were bearing down on its writer that very instant  )
> 
> On the other hand, less obtrusive words such as "quickly", "slowly", "clearly" and so on don't carry so much load and are almost invisible so cause less fuss. They can also add voice - whereby the narration is in the style of a person perceiving events. At the end of the day it comes down to using the best word for what you want to do.



The issue here is not adverbs per se.  Although I won´t go into the merit of your sentence, one must look at the verb that the adverb is modifying.
For example ´BE´ .... a non verb if there ever was one.  Yes, the most important verb in the English language but NOT an action verb.  You can´t really pick a much better verb than BE for a lot of cases.  So add a damn adverb if it spices it up.  Add a good one.
Other adverbs deal with frequency so if appropriate and it sounds ok, why not? 
Etc. etc.  It has to do with the verb ... Pick strong verbs and you don´t need nor will want weak adverbs.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 26, 2016)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I used the term RULE as did others in this thread.
> Truthfully, if a person reads and writes and then writes some more, then comes here and sees the word RULE and gets his shorts into a knot???
> Not much hope for a person like that as a writer.
> I mean what did someone figure?  The Prose Police were going to show up at the door and go upside a writer´s head for using an adverb¿
> ...



Perhaps not for the one you describe. 

But I came here having not written much of anything in 20 some years. I had started working on my WIP but was well aware that I knew nothing at all about writing. I was tying to find advice on the good and bad stuff when it came to writing. 

Someone who hasn't written much but would like to start may come here and start checking out threads and see a whole bunch of "rules" that aren't really rules but personal preferences. They might not be concerned about the Prose Police showing up, but they want to do everything they can to get it right. They could, and probably will at some point, get confused.


----------

