# For Those Who Despise Adverbs



## Sam (Nov 17, 2011)

I guess as writers we've heard it so many times that it almost seems a set-in-stone rule at this point. The belief that all adverbs should be stricken from your work as though they were derogatory. People see words ending in '-ly' and the red pen comes out as fast as a cowboy draws a six-shooter. Yet there's no concern for the fact that many words ending in '-ly' aren't even adverbs. What's even more confounding is that there are dozens of adverbs don't end in '-ly' at all! 

_Almost, always, never, less, more, not, often, too, fast, far, even, well, very, soon, afterwards, seldom, tomorrow, yesterday, abroad, downstairs, home, nowhere, outside, somewhere, underground, out, in, later, next, while, when, then, here, there. 

_Are you going to avoid these adverbs as well? Are you going to cut out almost a quarter of the words in the English language because someone tells you to? I'm all for tightening writing, but I had two professional editors ask me recently why I declined to use many '-ly' adverbs in my novel but instead used three or four words to say the same thing. That's not tight writing, in my opinion. 

I think it's a steep descent that writers are being taken down. For me, it can't lead anywhere good. Just keep this post in mind the next time you think of taking your red pen to an adverb.


----------



## Gumby (Nov 17, 2011)

You make a great point here Sam. I tend to think that it's when the words are overused that the problems come in. But if used well, I see no reason not to use them.


----------



## Like a Fox (Nov 17, 2011)

I think the suggestion comes about because an excess of those 'ly' words tends to make for pretty crappy writing.

Kath thought, thoughtfully, as she sat, quietly, and pondered, ponderously.


----------



## Sam (Nov 17, 2011)

Unfortunately no one said 'excess' from the majority of posts I've read on different writing sites. The basic rule of thumb is to 'avoid them like the plague'. Which makes, in my opinion, as much sense as telling a guitarist to avoid playing C or E on his guitar. 

That said, what you have above is a case of _reductio ad absurdum. _No one would ever write that someone 'thought thoughtfully' or 'pondered ponderously'. It's a hyperbolic redundancy.


----------



## Like a Fox (Nov 17, 2011)

I'm sure someone, somewhere said "excess". 

Every writer worth their salt knows that no so-called rules are to be followed blindly. 
Anyone inclined to do so probably won't wind up being much of a writer.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 17, 2011)

Like a Fox said:


> Every writer worth their salt knows that no so-called rules are to be followed blindly.
> Anyone inclined to do so probably won't wind up being much of a writer.



Absolutely. 

I've been hanging around writing sites for a good while -- and most of the time  when I've seen this stuff about not using adverbs it's been in threads  like this one. A few times, I've seen critiques or posts where people have said  something to the effect of "you might not need to use so many adverbs"  -- but I can't recall a single time when it's been laid down as some  kind of absolute rule. I've never seen anyone say "avoid them like the  plague." This whole thing about people going around writing sites  telling other people to avoid adverbs has been  totally blown out of proportion. I just don't see it -- especially where it counts most -- in the areas where people post and critique work.


----------



## Tiamat (Nov 18, 2011)

There is no such rule that says you _can't_ or should _never _use them.  If there were such a rule, as Fox said, most writers would ignore it anyways, and be all the better for it.  From my understanding, adverbs are something you should take it easy on, but, as most of us are aware, that goes for most descriptive devices.  

Simile and metaphor:  Excellent ways to show you off your creativity and, when used properly, they're great in describing a characteristic or act more succinctly than with other modifiers.

Passive voice:  Kind of inevitable, but something all writers should strive to use sparingly.

Telling instead of showing:  Excellent for transitions and other means of getting from Point A to Point B, but not something you want to use exclusively.

Which brings me to my next point:  Adverbs are a form of telling, not showing.  If you say, "'Blah blah blah,' Jack said quietly," you're telling us how Jack spoke, but if you say "'Blah blah blah,' Jack mumbled," then you're showing us.  Strong action verbs will _always_ immerse your reader better than adverbs.  That puts the reader directly in the action of the story, rather than just telling them how the action was done.

None of the above paragraphs say that you shouldn't use adverbs, or that you should avoid them like the plague.  My opinion is to push yourself.  If you can think of a good verb that'll describe the action better than the adverb, use that.  If you can't, leave the adverb.  But in my case, if I'm editing something and I see more than X amount of adverbs close together, I go out of my way to eliminate them--sometimes even saying to myself "If I delete this adverb, is it really going to change anything?"  I do the same thing with adjectives, and you'd be surprised how many times the answer is no.

  (And by the way, Sam, I believe William Safire was attributed the quote "Avoid cliches like the plague," not adverbs.)


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 18, 2011)

​
Yes. I remember Adlestrop—
The name, because one afternoon
Of heat the express-train drew up there
Unwontedly. It was late June.



From Adlestrop by Edward Thomas

Go on - Tell me that is wrong....


----------



## Nacian (Nov 18, 2011)

I was just about going to say that those were not adverbs.
I was not even aware they were adverbs until now.
aren't they something to do  with conjunctions as counjunctives?
I might be totally wrong here..
In order to avoid LY I usualy use WITH like this:

instead of
*he gave generously*
I put
*he gave with generosity*


----------



## Sam (Nov 18, 2011)

Tiamat10 said:


> There is no such rule that says you _can't_ or should _never _use them.  If there were such a rule, as Fox said, most writers would ignore it anyways, and be all the better for it.  From my understanding, adverbs are something you should take it easy on, but, as most of us are aware, that goes for most descriptive devices.
> 
> Simile and metaphor:  Excellent ways to show you off your creativity and, when used properly, they're great in describing a characteristic or act more succinctly than with other modifiers.
> 
> ...



What I'm saying is none of it matters. Passive, showing, telling, adverbs, simile, metaphor, adjectives. I sold over 300 books when I self-published. Of that number, there was not _one reader _who, when I met them sometime later, said to me I didn't show enough or used too many adverbs. It's only writers who turn their noses up at such things. Readers don't give a good g****mn. They only want to be entertained and read a good story. 

That being said, I'm not saying you should be lackadaisical with your writing. I'm not advocating that we take no care with our words and become clones of Stephenie Meyer. I'm just saying that it seems ludicrous to remove words from your vocabulary. And, yes, I have seen people say 'avoid adverbs like the plague'. I've seen a published author on this very site advise a new writer to avoid them like the plague. 

When it comes to action, I completely agree that adverbs bog the reader down in meaningless prose. That's different. Action scenes (unless you're writing a thriller or action-based novel) are usually rare. They're supposed to convey immediacy. Therefore, sentences describing them need to be tight and devoid of superfluous words. That's a valid point. But not every page of your novel is filled with action. Not every page needs to be scrutinised to that degree.

And, for the record, who made telling the eighth deadly sin? This whole fascination with showing has writers thinking that it must be done at all times. There was a new thread here not too long ago where a writer asked how he could change a scene to showing because he was told he couldn't use telling. _That _is where I'm coming from. This advice is being taken so literally that people are beginning to think it's 'rules'. 

I'll issue an open challenge to this forum. If _anyone _can tell me of a book written in the last two centuries that doesn't contain some of the following, I will hang up my writing boots for good:


Adverbs
Passive voice
Telling
Adjectives
Prologues


----------



## Like a Fox (Nov 18, 2011)

No one here is saying that good writers don't occasionally use all those things.

And of course readers don't care. They mightn't be able to tell why exactly they're so bored and they put a book down, but that could easily happen and it could easily be due to weak writing. So it's nice that writers help each other out and try and assist each other in avoiding doing that. If some people choose to do that by doling out absolutes then it's up to the individual to take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Nov 18, 2011)

When I began taking writing seriously, I subscribed to a writing magazine (whose name is not dissimilar to this very site)--still do subscribe, infact--and soon picked up on many of these rules. I thought it'd be a nightmare to learn them. I think the good writer, or the writer with the potential to be good, is the one with the ability to decide when to apply these rules and when they can be ignored. Who makes the rules, anyway? And aren't they there to be broken? If there's a rule about not using em dashes to follow parentheses, I just broke it.

I started a story the other day with: On Essex Street, the old school building was freshly painted and brightly lit.

Yesterday, I changed it to: The old school building was clean and brightly lit.

Then to: The old school building was clean and well lit.

The address was unnecessary to the story, and the final version is more succinct and retains the image I wanted. I'm fully aware I changed two -ly adverbs and inserted "well" as an adverb, but I can honestly say I gave no thought whatsoever to what type of words they were. My only thought was of tightening up the writing. I only realised what I'd done when looking at this thread.

And I didn't realise I was referencing Hemingway either, until I read it back and it sounded familiar.


----------



## Jon M (Nov 18, 2011)

Tiamat10 said:


> Which brings me to my next point:  Adverbs are a form of telling, not showing.


Agreed. I think that is the larger point here. Not that adverbs are bad, but that their use should be questioned in favor of stronger, more precise verbs. And I think they are sometimes indicative of lazy writing, especially when used to modify dialogue tags, i.e., "John said enthusiastically".


----------



## Rob (Nov 18, 2011)

Tiamat10 said:


> Which brings me to my next point:  Adverbs are a form of telling, not showing.  If you say, "'Blah blah blah,' Jack said quietly," you're telling us how Jack spoke, but if you say "'Blah blah blah,' Jack mumbled," then you're showing us.  Strong action verbs will _always_ immerse your reader better than adverbs.  That puts the reader directly in the action of the story, rather than just telling them how the action was done.


Adverbs are no more telling than nouns. There is always a case for using a stronger verb if there is one, rather than a verb and adverb, but that's about word choice rather than showing and telling. If an adverb is the right word, use it. If it's not, don't. In your example, mumbling doesn't simply mean to speak quietly. With mumbling the speech is indistinct. But both "John mumbled" and "John said quietly" are both 'telling' the reader how John spoke. It's okay to tell the reader how John spoke.


----------



## Sam (Nov 18, 2011)

Rob said:


> Adverbs are no more telling than nouns. There is always a case for using a stronger verb if there is one, rather than a verb and adverb, but that's about word choice rather than showing and telling. If an adverb is the right word, use it. If it's not, don't. In your example, mumbling doesn't simply mean to speak quietly. With mumbling the speech is indistinct. But both "John mumbled" and "John said quietly" are both 'telling' the reader how John spoke. It's okay to tell the reader how John spoke.



Exactly! 

I understand where Steph is coming from, though. I like to show clenched jaws and gritted teeth at times. But saying 'John gritted his teeth' is still telling. To show that John gritted his teeth you would have to do something like this: 

_As John finished berating him, Jack heard a grimace-inducing sound; of two hard objects grinding against each other. When he looked up, John's teeth were bared, moving from side to side, his face as red as his hair. 

_I don't know about you, but having to read that at every other line of dialogue would be cringe-inducing for another reason entirely.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 18, 2011)

Nacian said:


> I was just about going to say that those were not adverbs.
> I was not even aware they were adverbs until now.
> aren't they something to do  with conjunctions as counjunctives?
> I might be totally wrong here..
> ...





Do not mean the same thing.


----------



## Tiamat (Nov 18, 2011)

My whole point here is not that you shouldn't use them, or that you should avoid them like the plague.  The rule should perhaps read "Use them wisely."  But then, that's true of everything.  Every sentence you write should be carefully constructed.  Look at it this way.

[quote="Twilight" by Stephanie Meyer]Charlie had really been fairly nice about the whole thing.  He seemed genuinely pleased that I was coming to live with him for the first time with any degree of permanence.  He'd already gotten me registered for high school and was going to help me get a car.[/quote]

[quote="If Nobody Speaks of Remarkable Things" by Jon McGregor]And silence drops down from out of the night, into this city, the briefest of silences, like a falter between heartbeats, like a darkness between blinks.  Secretly, there is always this moment, an unexpected pause, a hesitation as one day is left behind and a new one begins.[/quote]

Two examples of published fiction--one's a New York Times bestseller, the other a nominee for the Booker Prize.  Which do you consider stronger writing?  (If you say the first, you need slapped, but then again, it's all subjective.)  The key thing is that both authors are using techniques that are typically frowned upon by people who write about writing.  (Failed writers, perhaps?  You teach best what you most need to learn, after all.) 

I suppose there are a couple things you can discern from this.  One is that you don't actually need to be a good writer to get published, and the other is there are no absolute rules for writing.  There are guidelines, yes, and many of them, but feel free to ignore them as you see fit.  Just bear in mind that if you go crazy on the adverbs, passive voice, or any other device, I'm going to call you out on it in my critique.  Does it mean I'm right and you're wrong?  No. Would it perhaps warrant another look at your prose?  I think so, but again, that's up to you.  

_You_ are the author, so write as _you_ see fit.


----------



## Robdemanc (Nov 18, 2011)

Maybe the adverb thing has something to do with style.  If you are going for a wordy, flowery style then a few adverbs may add to it.  But if you were writing a tense piece, or a style that is minimal, adverbs may get in the way.

TBH I don't like them and have always tried not to use them even in emails and essays at college.   I am of the opinion that an adverb clutters a sentence.  And my pet hate is hearing someone say "Actually...." or "Basically..." in speech.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 18, 2011)

_The rule should perhaps read "Use them wisely."
_
That rule also applies to guns and Scotch Bonnet peppers...


----------



## Rob (Nov 18, 2011)

Tiamat10 said:


> Two examples of published fiction--one's a New York Times bestseller, the other a nominee for the Booker Prize.  Which do you consider stronger writing?  (If you say the first, you need slapped, but then again, it's all subjective.)


Well first you'd need to define what you mean by 'stronger writing'. Then you'd need to factor in differences due to the target audience. And of course, one of the two sold in much higher volume than the other, and with publishing being a business, high sales generally trumps most things in terms of 'better'.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 18, 2011)

Nacian said:


> I was just about going to say that those were not adverbs.
> I was not even aware they were adverbs until now.
> aren't they something to do  with conjunctions as counjunctives?
> I might be totally wrong here..



Conjunctions and adverbs are two completely different things.  One links words together (and, or, but, etc.).  One modifies verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.



Nacian said:


> In order to avoid LY I usualy use WITH like this:
> 
> instead of
> *he gave generously*
> ...



As someone else said, those mean different things, but even ignoring that, what you're doing is awful.  You're crippling your writing for the sake of following the letter of the law, and in the process you're ignoring its spirit.

The whole point of these rules is not what they say, but rather what they mean.  "Don't use adverbs" simply means, "Don't bog down your writing with unnecessary words."  Sometimes an adverb really is the best thing to use, and in those cases, you should use it.



Tiamat10 said:


> Two examples of published fiction--one's a New York Times bestseller, the other a nominee for the Booker Prize. Which do you consider stronger writing? (If you say the first, you need slapped, but then again, it's all subjective.)



No, it's not all subjective.  Writing can be objectively bad, and this is an excellent example of it.  However, it's also worth noting that the grammar is pretty lousy in the second example, even if the writing is more compelling.  Again, this is the difference between following the letter of the law and following the spirit.  In these excerpts, Meyer has perfect grammar but poor writing, while McGregor has grammatical flaws but decent writing.  Each has something objectively wrong with it, but one is still objectively better than the other.


----------



## Sam (Nov 18, 2011)

Robdemanc said:


> Maybe the adverb thing has something to do with style.  If you are going for a wordy, flowery style then a few adverbs may add to it.  But if you were writing a tense piece, or a style that is minimal, adverbs may get in the way.
> 
> TBH I don't like them and have always tried not to use them even in emails and essays at college.   I am of the opinion that an adverb clutters a sentence.  And my pet hate is hearing someone say "Actually...." or "Basically..." in speech.





			
				Tiamat10 said:
			
		

> Two examples of published fiction--one's a New York Times bestseller,  the other a nominee for the Booker Prize.  Which do you consider  stronger writing?  (If you say the first, you need slapped, but then  again, it's all subjective.)  The key thing is that both authors are  using techniques that are typically frowned upon by people who write  about writing.  (Failed writers, perhaps?  You teach best what you most  need to learn, after all.)
> 
> I suppose there are a couple things you can discern from this.  One is  that you don't actually need to be a good writer to get published, and  the other is there are no absolute rules for writing.  There are  guidelines, yes, and many of them, but feel free to ignore them as you  see fit.  Just bear in mind that if you go crazy on the adverbs, passive  voice, or any other /device, I'm going to call you out on it in my  critique.  Does it mean I'm right and you're wrong?  No. Would it  perhaps warrant another look at your prose?  I think so, but again,  that's up to you.
> 
> _You_ are the author, so write as _you_ see fit.



No one seems to have read my first post. Not all words that end with '-ly' are adverbs; not all adverbs end with '-ly'. I gave a list of words which are adverbs but which don't end with that pejorative suffix. Now here's another list. 

_Friendly, bully, family, homily, apply, anomaly, assembly, unlikely, timely, supply, disorderly, dastardly, ghastly, grisly, heavenly, hourly, imply, shapely, rarely, lowly, lovely, orderly, leisurely, nightly, monopoly, monthly, costly, cuddly, kindly, jolly. 

__*None of those are adverbs. *_ They are either nouns or adjectives. So, I ask again, how many of those have you stroked out of your writing? Can you not see my point here? It's ludicrous to suggest _any _words are wrong, in my opinion. I know Stephen King said to avoid adverbs in _On Writing, _despite the fact that he uses them religiously in every book he's ever written. Does that not tell you something? 

As for adverbs cluttering a sentence: If you want to go that route, Rob, you'll have to remove every case of _when, then, here, there, never, more, often, too, even, _and _always _from every piece of writing you ever pen. Good luck with that.


----------



## Robdemanc (Nov 18, 2011)

Sam W said:


> No one seems to have read my first post. Not all words that end with '-ly' are adverbs; not all adverbs end with '-ly'. I gave a list of words which are adverbs but which don't end with that pejorative suffix. Now here's another list.
> 
> _Friendly, bully, family, homily, apply, anomaly, assembly, unlikely, timely, supply, disorderly, dastardly, ghastly, grisly, heavenly, hourly, imply, shapely, rarely, lowly, lovely, orderly, leisurely, nightly, monopoly, monthly, costly, cuddly, kindly, jolly.
> 
> ...




I can see you feel very strongly about it.   I try not to use words like almost, never, often, too, even etc.  But I am not of the opinion that these words should all be removed.  Sometimes they fit, but I would say most often they don't.   I read your first post and you are correct that some adverbs do not end in -ly, and that not all words ending in -ly are adverbs.

The writer's "rule" of not using them is a guideline to help budding writers be aware of overuse.   If you fill a sentence with adjectives or adverbs it can look amaturish.

But actually, I do know that really everyone has basically their own way of writing......almost


----------



## Sam (Nov 18, 2011)

Robdemanc said:


> I can see you feel very strongly about it.   I try not to use words like almost, never, often, too, even etc.  But I am not of the opinion that these words should all be removed.  Sometimes they fit, but I would say most often they don't.   I read your first post and you are correct that some adverbs do not end in -ly, and that not all words ending in -ly are adverbs.
> 
> The writer's "rule" of not using them is a guideline to help budding writers be aware of overuse.   If you fill a sentence with adjectives or adverbs it can look amaturish.
> 
> But actually, I do know that really everyone has basically their own way of writing......almost



"Where at, with blade, with bloody blameful blade, He bravely breached his boiling bloody breast". 

That's a line from Shakespeare's _A Midsummer Night's Dream. _There are four adjectives and two adverbs in that sentence. Perhaps you'd like to call Shakespeare and his writing amateurish? 

"How they affected my aunt, nobody knew; for immediately upon separation she took her maiden name again, bought a cottage in a hamlet on the sea-coast a long way off, established herself there as a single woman with one servant, and was understood to live secluded, ever afterwards, in an inflexible environment". 

There are eight adverbs and five adjectives in that sentence from Dickens' _David Copperfield. _By your token, he is an amateurish writer, despite being studied in every school and English-teaching institution in the world. 

I can give more examples if everyone is so inclined. It would be a waste of time, because every author from the dawn of time has used adjectives and adverbs in their work. To do otherwise would be almost impossible, if not completely nonsensical, in my opinion.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 18, 2011)

Dickens and Shakespeare -- seriously? Yes, they're classics, and for good reason -- but no one writes like that anymore. You’re comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 18, 2011)

Sam W said:


> No one seems to have read my first post. Not all words that end with '-ly' are adverbs; not all adverbs end with '-ly'. I gave a list of words which are adverbs but which don't end with that pejorative suffix. Now here's another list.
> 
> _Friendly, bully, family, homily, apply, anomaly, assembly, unlikely, timely, supply, disorderly, dastardly, ghastly, grisly, heavenly, hourly, imply, shapely, rarely, lowly, lovely, orderly, leisurely, nightly, monopoly, monthly, costly, cuddly, kindly, jolly.
> 
> __*None of those are adverbs. *_



Hourly, rarely, leisurely, nightly, monthly, and kindly can all be adverbs.

Still, the point that you claim "no one read" has been addressed here by several people.  Yes, adverbs aren't bad, but they can lead to bad writing.  I don't think anyone disputes that point.  However, as with all rules, it's something that you need to be aware of, rather than something that's set in stone.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 18, 2011)

How a writer should use adverbs – or not – is something anyone with an iota of talent can figure out on his own.  Anyone who would follow a so-called rule without question, further investigation or comparison deserves to fail -- and probably will. You can always use too much of anything – and that’s about as far as folks here are taking it.

And I’m still waiting for all these people who “despise” adverbs to show up. I thought writing sites were crawling with them.


----------



## Robdemanc (Nov 18, 2011)

Sam W said:


> "Where at, with blade, with bloody blameful blade, He bravely breached his boiling bloody breast".
> 
> That's a line from Shakespeare's _A Midsummer Night's Dream. _There are four adjectives and two adverbs in that sentence. Perhaps you'd like to call Shakespeare and his writing amateurish?
> 
> ...



I think the issue is that for modern writers, the modern publisher is averse to overuse of adverbs and adjectives, they think it shows a lack of creativity and I understand what they mean.   I have read Dickens (never read Shakespear), and I would say they are considered classics mainly because they were the first of a kind.  But using 19th century writing as examples is not helpful for the modern writer, Dickens was very descriptive, but that doesn't mean we should all be descriptive.  I hate descriptive novels.   And I question the fact that 19th century work is held up as some kind of template for us all to aspire to.   I am certain students of literature could just as easily use Jackie Collins to learn what literature is than use Dickens.

Let me repeat - My personal taste is for text that uses adverbs sparingly not liberally.  (There are several for you in that sentence)  I have no doubt people will disagree.


----------



## Sam (Nov 18, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Dickens and Shakespeare -- seriously? Yes, they're classics, and for good reason -- but no one writes like that anymore. You’re comparing apples and oranges.



You want contemporary, Joseph, contemporary you will have: 

"Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world, his hand rose and fell softly with each precious breath". 

Three adjectives and two adverbs in that sentence from the first page of the critically acclaimed novel _The Road _by Cormac McCarthy. And, later: 

"And on the far shore a creature that raised its dripping mouth from the rimstone pool and stared into the light with eyes dead white and sightless as the eggs of spiders". 

Two adverbs and three adjectives in that one. 

"He no sooner saw the woman than he saw the aftermath of her -- his marriage proposal and her acceptance, the home they would set up together, the drawn rich silk curtain leaking purple light, the bedsheets billowing like clouds, the wisp of aromatic smoke winding from the chimney -- only for every wrack of it -- its lattice of crimson roof tiles, its gables and dormer windows, his happiness, his future -- to come crashing down on him in the moment of her walking past". 

Six adjectives and five adverbs in that first sentence from _The Finkler Question _by Howard Jacobson, the winner of the Booker prize for 2010.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 18, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> Do not mean the same thing.


could you explain how they differ?


----------



## Bilston Blue (Nov 18, 2011)

Nacian said:


> could you explain how they differ?


Going to go off topic briefly (see what I did there--I stayed on topic whilst going off topic).

Nacian, you claim to be keen to improve your understanding and use of English, yet this education seems to consist mainly of asking people to explain to you things you don't understand. Read the dictionary or a thesaurus to learn the meaning of words you don't understand. Practice writing prose. Study English comprehension books. And please, please, stop questioning the language; accept it for what it is.


Sorry for the interruption folks.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 18, 2011)

> No one would ever write that someone 'thought thoughtfully' or 'pondered ponderously'. It's a hyperbolic redundancy.


Don't you believe it Sam, there are some barely literate people on this site. If I haven't seen worse I have seen as bad.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 18, 2011)

Sam W said:


> You want contemporary, Joseph, contemporary you will have



OK. Wonderful examples -- and pretty good evidence that this “steep descent” into a world without adverbs that you’re so worried about isn’t happening.

And no one here is claiming that you shouldn’t use adverbs. No one is saying there should be some kind of limit. You’re the only here saying that there are all these people out there who “despise” adverbs or who are trying to enforce these non-existent rules. Now and again on writing sites you see people quoting Stephen King etc., but someone always comes along in short order to offer an opposing view. I sure don’t see anyone touting rules in the places where people post and critique work. I just don’t get why you think this is such a big problem. Where is this happening? Certainly not here.


----------



## Sam (Nov 18, 2011)

JosephB said:


> OK. Wonderful examples -- and pretty good evidence that this “steep descent” into a world without adverbs that you’re so worried about isn’t happening.



Of course it isn't happening in the world of publishing. That's my point. This advice that, among other people, Robdemanc just gave about adjectives and adverbs constituting 'weak' writing is proven to be nonsense when the book that won last year's Booker prize for literature has almost a dozen of them in the first sentence. If they constitute weak writing, why is this book voted the best of the year by literary-minded experts? This advice is only, from what I've seen, given out on writing sites. If there was any substance to it, these novels would not be considered for some of the greatest accolades in literature. 



> And no one here is claiming that you shouldn’t use adverbs. No one is saying there should be some kind of limit. You’re the only here saying that there are all these people out there who “despise” adverbs or who are trying to enforce these non-existent rules. Now and again on writing sites you see people quoting Stephen King etc., but someone always comes along in short order to offer an opposing view. I sure don’t see anyone touting rules in the places where people post and critique work. I just don’t get why you think this is such a big problem. Where is this happening? Certainly not here.



At least three people in this thread have said that adverbs are best avoided. I've come back with examples which show that not only are they prevalent in every novel in publication, they're also prevalent in novels which are considered among both readers and literary critics to be some of the best ever written. So the question I ask is: How can anyone say they're 'weak writing' or that they should 'not be overused'. The slippery slope I refer to is the one a writer starts down when s/he believes that using a word because it ends a certain way or because it forms a passive construction is 'wrong'.


----------



## Robdemanc (Nov 18, 2011)

The "rule" about adverbs is a guideline to watch your usage because it can be easy to use adverbs when they are not necessary.  I said I do not prefer to use them if possible.


----------



## Sam (Nov 18, 2011)

Robdemanc said:


> The "rule" about (adverb) adverbs is a guideline to watch your usage because it can be easy (adjective) to use adverbs when (adverb) they are not (adverb) necessary (adjective).  I said (adjective) I do not (adverb) prefer to use them if possible (adjective).



_Quod erat demonstrandum. _


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 18, 2011)

Sam W said:


> _Quod erat demonstrandum. _



Not to rain on your parade again, but there are actually five adjectives/adverbs, not eight.  "About" is a preposition, "when" is a conjunction (in this case), and "said" is a verb.

Still, it's a good point that many words you wouldn't expect to be adverbs actually are ("not" being the one that stood out to me).  Predicate adjectives are also an unexpected (but inarguable) case.  All the more reason to follow the spirit of the so-called rule, rather than its literal meaning.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 18, 2011)

Sam W said:


> Of course it isn't happening in the world of publishing. That's my point. This advice that, among other people, Robdemanc just gave about adjectives and adverbs constituting 'weak' writing is proven to be nonsense when the book that won last year's Booker prize for literature has almost a dozen of them in the first sentence. If they constitute weak writing, why is this book voted the best of the year by literary-minded experts? This advice is only, from what I've seen, given out on writing sites. If there was any substance to it, these novels would not be considered for some of the greatest accolades in literature.
> 
> At least three people in this thread have said that adverbs are best avoided. I've come back with examples which show that not only are they prevalent in every novel in publication, they're also prevalent in novels which are considered among both readers and literary critics to be some of the best ever written. So the question I ask is: How can anyone say they're 'weak writing' or that they should 'not be overused'. The slippery slope I refer to is the one a writer starts down when s/he believes that using a word because it ends a certain way or because it forms a passive construction is 'wrong'.



Maybe I missed it -- but I can't see where anyone said, "that adverbs  are best avoided." You're trying to make a case by putting words in  people's mouths -- which is never a good idea. Is there a Latin phrase  that covers that? 

Also note that Robdemanc said this: "Let me repeat - _My personal taste_ is for text that uses adverbs sparingly not liberally." Does that sound like someone laying down some rule set in stone? I don't think so. Other people have made similar qualifying statements. So maybe you should consider the whole of what people are saying instead of cherry picking the bits that suit your argument.

Overuse is subjective. But I think most would agree that it’s certainly possible to overuse certain adverbs. Are you claiming it isn't possible? Whether or not an author uses them effectively is also subjective. Are you claiming that all adverb use is effective? 

People are expressing their opinions and preferences – in this case a general preference for stronger more precise verbs over the use of certain kinds of adverbs. No one is saying never use adverbs. No one is forcing anyone to write a certain way. For whatever reason, it seems to be important to you to believe that's what is going on here -- but it isn't. 

And we’re not talking about Cormac McCarthy – rather writers who fall back on excessive and poor use of adverbs instead using more precise or stronger verbs -- or when they’re just not needed. It's HOW McCarthy uses the adverbs that make it work. Simply showing that McCarthy can use multiple adverbs in a sentence doesn't really prove anything or discount what most everyone in this thread is saying.

Here’s example I saw just today – although I’ll have to change it a little:

"I_ am _a professional,” Thomas replied, sharply.

Everything about the context of this implied that Thomas spoke “sharply” – so someone simply suggested that it wasn’t needed. I agreed with that. Now – this is the kind of thing everyone here is talking about except you.

PS -- don't post any samples on my account. I know that writers use adverbs. I've actually seen it done, believe it or not or not. And of course, I use them myself.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 18, 2011)

JosephB said:


> "I_ *am* _a professional,” Thomas replied, sharply.
> 
> Everything about the context of this implied that Thomas spoke “sharply” – so someone simply suggested that it wasn’t needed. I agreed with that. Now – this is the kind of thing everyone here is talking about except you.



But there is no context, which is why you need the adverb.  What if the preceding line had been, "Wow, you really do good work, Thomas!"? It's only redundant if the prompt had been something like, "Sorry, Thomas, but we need a professional for this."  Even then, what if he said the line under his breath? What if it was more of a pout than a retort?

There are so many ways that words can be spoken that dialogue can be ambiguous at times.  That's where context comes in.  If the context is too wordy or is missing, that's when you turn to adverbs instead.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 18, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> But there is no context, which is why you need the adverb.



It was in a posted story -- so it was in context. That's why I said "Everything about the context..."


----------



## starseed (Nov 18, 2011)

I agree with OP. I hate any sort of "rules"... But I do like things like "show vs tell" or "no adverbs" as _tips_. Having that stuff in my head has helped my writing but I never stick to any rule 100%. Sometimes you just need to tell, you need to use an adverb, and so on. 

The bottom line is, if it works it works. And it's completely individual to each piece of writing.


----------

