# Replacing -ly Adverbs



## J Anfinson

I realize we've talked about those pesky -ly Adverbs multiple times around here, such as *this old discussion* I dug up, but during a recent discussion the question came up about what do you replace them with. Now, before I go any further I'd like to add that by no means is it a requirement/rule/standard to do this, but it's often been suggested that one shouldn't rely on -ly adverbs all the time. Too many weakens the writing, it's said, and I'd have to agree. There are certain ones that I have even come to despise--such as suddenly. So how do you get rid of them? I'm sure this isn't the only option, but here's how I do it.

First of all, I try not to worry about it during the first draft and just use them to say what I want to say. That way I get the story told and it's a part of editing.

So let's say I wrote this:



> Mike had twenty miles to go until he'd be home. He could already taste the cold beer, and the thought of the big fight on ESPN was at the front of his mind as he passed the next mile marker. He was so engrossed in thinking about the bet he'd made that at first he didn't notice the slight vibration in the car's chassis, but as it grew in intensity he realized it wasn't a problem with the pavement. *Suddenly* there was an explosion and the car jerked toward the median.



There is is...that word I hate. How can I get rid of it?



> Mike had twenty miles to go until he'd be home. He could already taste the cold beer, and the thought of the big fight on ESPN was at the front of his mind as he passed the next mile marker. He was so engrossed in thinking about the bet he'd made that at first he didn't notice the slight vibration in the car's chassis, but as it grew in intensity he realized it wasn't a problem with the pavement.
> 
> *An explosion rocked him back in his seat, and the wheel jerked to the left. The car hit the median wall, the screaming of concrete against metal tearing at his ears as...*



Maybe you get the idea. As Kyle suggested in the thread I mentioned, you can "unpack" just about any -ly adverb into far more detail. It could be a great chance to enrich the story. Also, if you do it well, it's obvious that it happened suddenly, so it's pointless to say so. Let the context show it happened suddenly. 



> *"I hate you," he said angrily.*



Here is where these -ly adverbs really get abused, IMO. Again, let the context show he's angry.



> *Tom slammed his fist down on the tabletop, rattling the dishes. "I hate you."*



Needless to say, doing this is going to increase your word count. For some (like me) it's helpful because wordiness is hardly my problem. If you're already wordy, this thread might not be as much help as I'd like, but maybe you'll find something I've said to be of benefit anyway. 

Any other suggestions?


----------



## JustRob

Ungradually?


----------



## J Anfinson

JustRob said:


> Ungradually?



I'm not sure I understand. Are you wanting an example of how to replace it?


----------



## EmmaSohan

I was thinking about your aversion to suddenly. It seems like a word that could be mindlessly put into a sentence to try to increase tension. Suddenly . . . the engine exploded! That doesn't seem right. And I disagree with using 'suddenly' for events that must happen suddenly or cannot happen suddenly.

That leaves me with times when suddenly just does it's little job. They are riding a bus. Suddenly he stands up, grabs my hand, and we quickly hustle off the bus. I want the reader to know that is experienced by her as sudden, as opposed to the normal way one might get off the bus. I'm not sure I want to spend any more words on it, it's kind of an action scene.

Then my smile freezes -- when I sat down, everyone at my table suddenly stopped talking and started staring at me. I can replace 'suddenly' with 'abruptly' or 'immediately', but I am guessing that doesn't gain me anything.


----------



## J Anfinson

By no means is it always a bad thing to keep them. Sometimes they help the pacing by getting the point across quickly. Why unpack three more paragraphs when you can say the man was sweating profusely? All I'm saying is, consider each word and whether unpacking it would make the story better. I'd wager most of the time it's a benefit.

As for people suddenly stopping their talk? A hush fell over the table. I'd rewrite it with that. Sounds better to me anyway, but maybe I'm just weird.


----------



## AtleanWordsmith

Suddenly, I found myself wondering how many times I'd used the word "suddenly" in my writing.

Thanks, though, *J Anfinson*!  It's nice to be aware of things like this.  I'd never really given it a thought before.


----------



## Phil Istine

I treated myself to Stephen King's "On Writing" some time ago and his comments on adverbs stuck in my head.  At first I didn't grasp the point he was making.  It became clearer when I looked back over some pieces I had written.  They were liberally (ha ha!) sprinkled with adverbs throughout.  I tidied things up to see how they looked with no adverbs - or at least a minimal number.  It was a big improvement, though it was still clear that the writing was by a beginner.
I think that some of the problem is in the education system.  It teaches what various things are called and has the students gaining marks for using the different parts of speech.  What it didn't teach (at least to the lowish level of my own education) was how to use them *well*.

Here are the nuts and bolts but you supply your own spanner (wrench to our US friends).


----------



## John Oberon

"I hate you," he said angrily.

I prefer a good strong verb, but replacing the adverb with action is great too. Try one of these: spat, hissed, shrieked, barked, growled, sneered, smoldered (not really a dialogue verb, but hoo hoo, right? lol.)

As for your "suddenly" example, I tend to reserve that word for things without prelude whatsoever, which the neither the MC or reader had any hint would happen, a "poof!" out of the blue:

_Damien reached the summit and collapsed with exhaustion. Suddenly, a goddess appeared by his side.

_If you use it only for that, it cuts usage way down.

Your example has a bit of a prelude, namely the road vibration that increases in intensity for probably several seconds. So this explosion that Mike experiences is most likely a by-product of something bigger and badder that happened a ways away from Mike, a crescendo culminating with the blast. And perhaps you've already told what caused this by-product so the reader already knows something's going to happen. That doesn't fit my little definition of suddenly, lol.


----------



## Sam

Humans don't bark. Nor do they growl. Or hiss. 

Unless they're some hybrid mandogsnake.


----------



## Terry D

Adverbs are dangerous because they can trick us into believing we are creating imagery when we are not. I particularly dislike adverbs in dialogue tags. To me, they are a symptom of a writer who has not yet learned to trust his/her own ability to make the reader see what is going on through narration, or dialogue. I don't tend to use many 'ly' adverbs in my writing. I can't really remember if it's something I worked on, or if I just avoid them as a matter of course (I don't avoid them entirely, that would be just as bad as relying too heavily on them). I know I don't like reading them in excess. I have a collection of short stories by horror writer extraordinaire, Ramsey Campbell that I just started reading a few weeks ago. I've been a Campbell fan for a long time and only just realized that he uses a lot of 'ly' adverbs. They seem to work for him, but I still dislike them.

BTW, 'suddenly  adds nothing to this:




> Then my smile freezes -- when I sat down, everyone at my table suddenly stopped talking and started staring at me.





> I can replace 'suddenly' with 'abruptly' or 'immediately', but I am guessing that doesn't gain me anything.




Take it out and you have; "...when I sat down, everyone at my table stopped talking and started staring at me." To me that is far more effective, and 100% as immediate, as the adverbicized version.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Terry D said:


> Adverbs are dangerous because they can trick us into believing we are creating imagery when we are not. I particularly dislike adverbs in dialogue tags. To me, they are a symptom of a writer who has not yet learned to trust his/her own ability to make the reader see what is going on through narration, or dialogue. I don't tend to use many 'ly' adverbs in my writing. I can't really remember if it's something I worked on, or if I just avoid them as a matter of course (I don't avoid them entirely, that would be just as bad as relying too heavily on them). I know I don't like reading them in excess. I have a collection of short stories by horror writer extraordinaire, Ramsey Campbell that I just started reading a few weeks ago. I've been a Campbell fan for a long time and only just realized that he uses a lot of 'ly' adverbs. They seem to work for him, but I still dislike them.
> 
> BTW, 'suddenly  adds nothing to this:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it out and you have; "...when I sat down, everyone at my table stopped talking and started staring at me." To me that is far more effective, and 100% as immediate, as the adverbicized version.




No. When people go quiet, they usually do it slowly. They finish what they are saying at least. To say they suddenly stopped talking implies a much faster silence. To say a hush fell over the table is too elegant for me to think of, so it probably doesn't work for my 16-year-old narrator.

I use the word angry almost 100 times in my WIP and angrily appears only twice, so I assume I am in the crowd not overusing adverbs.

I have no troubles with Terry's post: particularly, really, just, entirely, heavily, only just, still. That seems typical of most writers.


----------



## Terry D

I could not disagree more, but what do I know.


----------



## JustRob

Sam said:


> Humans don't bark. Nor do they growl. Or hiss.
> 
> Unless they're some hybrid mandogsnake.




Funny you should mention that. The following line appears_ in my novel_. Two dialogue verbs for the price of one. When the girl's partner is lost for a word she completes his sentence for him thus.

‘Visceral,’ she offered, hissing the word like a reptile.

I won't go into the sexual encounter that preceded and prompted that line here but take it from me that it was wholly apposite. Sex does bring out the animal in people though.

Regarding adverbs I am all for allowing the reader to form their own perception of the proceedings. If someone says something _angrily_ then I consider it quite reasonable to leave the reader to imagine what signals gave that impression without describing them in detail. Indeed in real life we may just sense that someone has spoken angrily without consciously considering what directed us towards that impression, body language, tone of voice, facial expression or whatever. As the unseen reporter of events I the writer can only report that the person seemed angry when they spoke, a perfectly natural state of affairs. I wouldn't expect the reader to feel the need to cross-question me at length about how I came to that conclusion.


----------



## Pluralized

Sweating over adverbs seems to be the height of futility but I get it. Seems like the same logic we've been arguing about in other threads, though: everything in moderation and everything in its appropriate place. Sometimes you don't want or need to 'unpack' every sentiment and adverbs exist for a reason. 

My favorite bit is reading this ridiculous thing again:



The Tourist said:


> 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.


----------



## Terry D

JustRob said:


> Funny you should mention that. The following line appears_ in my novel_. Two dialogue verbs for the price of one. When the girl's partner is lost for a word she completes his sentence for him thus.
> 
> ‘Visceral,’ she offered, hissing the word like a reptile.
> 
> I won't go into the sexual encounter that preceded and prompted that line here but take it from me that it was wholly apposite. Sex does bring out the animal in people though.
> 
> Regarding adverbs I am all for allowing the reader to form their own perception of the proceedings. If someone says something _angrily_ then I consider it quite reasonable to leave the reader to imagine what signals gave that impression without describing them in detail. Indeed in real life we may just sense that someone has spoken angrily without consciously considering what directed us towards that impression, body language, tone of voice, facial expression or whatever. As the unseen reporter of events I the writer can only report that the person seemed angry when they spoke, a perfectly natural state of affairs. I wouldn't expect the reader to feel the need to cross-question me at length about how I came to that conclusion.



That's the whole point. The reader should be able to understand the character's mental state (in the case of angerly) without the narrator telling them the character is angry, or confused, or irritated. The 'ly' adverbs in dialogue tags -- as in most cases -- are quick fixes for shallow writing. IMO



> Originally Posted by *The Tourist*
> 
> _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._


_

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit._


----------



## J Anfinson

John Oberon said:


> Your example has a bit of a prelude, namely the road vibration that increases in intensity for probably several seconds. So this explosion that Mike experiences is most likely a by-product of something bigger and badder that happened a ways away from Mike, a crescendo culminating with the blast. And perhaps you've already told what caused this by-product so the reader already knows something's going to happen. That doesn't fit my little definition of suddenly, lol.



Actually, if I'd have continued that story it would have been the driveshaft u-joint failing. Ever had one come loose while driving? When I was a teen I was riding with a friend in his LTD and the car vibrated, building quickly until with a bang and a jerk the driveshaft was slung off into the ditch. We almost lost control and left the road. Fun times.



JustRob said:


> I wouldn't expect the reader to feel the need to cross-question me at length about how I came to that conclusion.



It's not about the reader questioning. It's about making your writing the best it can be.


----------



## Kevin

comedic effect at times calls for overstatement... ly...ness.


----------



## JustRob

Terry D said:


> That's the whole point. The reader should be able to understand the character's mental state (in the case of angerly) without the narrator telling them the character is angry, or confused, or irritated. The 'ly' adverbs in dialogue tags -- as in most cases -- are quick fixes for shallow writing. IMO



Interesting situations frequently arise from shallow perceptions by those present. If everyone was as perceptive as the "perfect" writer then nothing worthy of a story might ever happen. Shallow writing may well be true to life. It all happens so fast in reality. Anger can be perceived suddenly, too late to stop a situation developing. The reader ought to share in the experiences of the characters and the story must be told how it was, not how it would be perceived in an ideal writer's world. Some may write stories as showpieces for their talents but others may just want to tell the story for its own sake. "Shallow" seems an overly critical word as used here.


----------



## EmmaSohan

J Anfinson said:


> There are certain ones that I have even come to despise--such as suddenly.



In the other discussion, Schrody suggested using "all of a sudden." Is that okay?


----------



## J Anfinson

EmmaSohan said:


> In the other discussion, Schrody suggested using "all of a sudden." Is that okay?



In my opinion there's no difference between those. Either way you're telling it instead of showing it. That's what -ly adverbs do, and why I'd recommend scrutinizing every one to determine if it's best replaced or kept. It's up to you to make that call. I won't presume to know what's best for everyone. It's your story and your career.


----------



## EmmaSohan

J Anfinson said:


> In my opinion there's no difference between those. Either way you're telling it instead of showing it. That's what -ly adverbs do, and why I'd recommend scrutinizing every one to determine if it's best replaced or kept. It's up to you to make that call. I won't presume to know what's best for everyone. It's your story and your career.



So maybe the problem has nothing to do with adverbs? What if we rewrite

"I hate you," he said angrily.

As

"I hate you," he said with anger.

Does that solve anything?


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> So maybe the problem has nothing to do with adverbs? What if we rewrite
> 
> "I hate you," he said angrily.
> 
> As
> 
> "I hate you," he said with anger.
> 
> Does that solve anything?



As a reader, neither of those work for me (unfortunately!).

Both "angrily" and "with anger" tell very little, as people can act differently when angry. 

For example: when I'm angry, I raise my voice and physically tense up. When my wife is angry, she gets quiet and sometimes cries. Using the word "angrily" to describe either of us in that moment would be too vague, as we both act differently.

"He said angrily." <-- Well, what does that mean? Did he yell it? Did he burst into tears? Did he pull his hair out? Did he bite his lip and scowl? I have no idea what his "angrily" is like.

Naming the emotion (anger) doesn't really show me how the character behaves.

This is why (for me) adverbs that refer to emotions don't work as well as I'd like. I find it's better to show the emotion in action rather than naming it.

But, that's just me. :encouragement:


----------



## Sam

J Anfinson said:


> In my opinion there's no difference between those. Either way you're telling it instead of showing it. That's what -ly adverbs do, and why I'd recommend scrutinizing every one to determine if it's best replaced or kept. It's up to you to make that call. I won't presume to know what's best for everyone. It's your story and your career.



A few years ago, I met Jeffery Deaver at a book signing in London. I was one of the last to get his signature and had a chance to to talk to him for about ninety seconds. I managed to ask his opinion about the rules that writers are supposed to adhere to: show/tell, adverbs, etcetera. He looked at me and this is what he said: 

"Rules are like sausages. They look great on the outside, but inside they're full of crap". 

What's interesting in this discussion is that few, if any, career authors put much stock in following rules. I read a passage from Steig Larsson's _The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo _yesterday, where Larsson starts eight sentences in a row with the pronoun 'she'. The only reason I noticed it was because I got a phone call, lost my place on the page, and had to re-read the passage again. First time, I didn't pass one remark. On the next page, he uses 'suddenly', 'largely', 'admittedly', and a few other adverbs. He even tells me what Lisbeth Salander is wearing, what's she's feeling, rather than showing me. 

The story is fantastic. 

I certainly don't think every -ly adverb should be scrutinised, and I definitely don't think readers care in the slightest. There is something to be gained by tightening up prose, but nothing to be gained by stressing over words.


----------



## Schrody

EmmaSohan said:


> In the other discussion, Schrody suggested using "all of a sudden." Is that okay?



I wrote it as a semi joke, even suggested they're the same. I'm with J on this one; not a lot of things happens suddenly (it could happen faster than expected, but if you're expecting a reaction it's not sudden), so it should be used only in the scenes where they make sense. I rarely use that word, and it could be only found in my pre-editing text.

Btw. "Suddenly, a Knock on the Door" is probably not your favorite story, J :lol:


----------



## J Anfinson

You do make a good point, Sam. Some authors can write anything and be good. On the other hand, there's Patterson, Dan Brown, lol.


----------



## Sam

J Anfinson said:


> You do make a good point, Sam. Some authors can write anything and be good. On the other hand, there's Patterson, Dan Brown, lol.



I'm not saying use adverbs indiscriminately, but I am saying don't get bogged down in scrutinising every last word you write. 

That's a sure-fire way to destroy your confidence and cripple your output.


----------



## Terry D

JustRob said:


> "Shallow" seems an overly critical word as used here.



And here I was thinking it was preferable to 'lazy'.

A story doesn't exist to replicate reality. That would be boring. Stories, and the language used to tell them, exist to _simulate_ reality with all the dull stuff removed. And language watered-down by weak adverbs is exceedingly boring. I'm not telling any writer to avoid all adverbs, even 'ly' adverbs, that would be idiotically restrictive. I'm just saying that I evaluate my adverb usage to see if there is a better, more effective, way to say the same thing. Adverbs are often the easiest way to say something, but often not the best.


----------



## J Anfinson

Oh no, don't let it bog you down. Write the story and edit at your leisure.


----------



## John Galt

I think "suddenly" and "all of the sudden" are pretty empty things.  You're effectively delaying the action by putting "suddenly" there, more so if you use "all of the sudden".  I much prefer just to have the thing happen.

EG: (NOTE: the simile there isn't meant to say anything; Annie, in my mind at present, isn't from America and is going on her assumptions.  Just some voice, is all)

Annie's slammed down on the Pac-Man arcade game.  The neon poetry shining onto her cigarette smoke.  _Tenth time's the charm, _she thought as she slid a fresh coin into the slot.  Half-way through it, fast on the way to that elusive high score, eating digital pellets like an average American at a McDonald's.  Almost there.  A hundred more.  Ten.  Three--
The screen went black.  
"Annie, how many do I gotta say, no more playing while at work," Jim said.  "And stop smokin.  Kids around, y' know."

The other option, I think, is to just cut suddenly and leave it as is.  I personally prefer the above demonstrated way, though.

On this: "Hello," Bobby said angrily. "Where's my money?"  I think it's best just to cut these.  Context and more showy dialogue attributions can be used.  Maybe have Bobby clench his jaw or fist or something _if the context doesn't inherently equal anger_.  The whole point of "said" is to be invisible.  It kind of kills it if you draw attention with an adverb.  I think it's pretty lazy too.
But I think they have a place (and no, this isn't just a clever way to say in the rubbish bin).  Action scenes, I think, could do fine with an adverb instead of a show (not the 'suddenly' stuff, but more general adverbs).  Not that every action needs a dozen adverbs.  You'll get away with one or two, maybe even three.


----------



## EmmaSohan

To me, there's a balance. I have a minor character, his role is basically done, and now he's just asking a question. I have

Garrison angrily asks

All I want the reader to know is that he stopped whining and is angry. A tell does just fine. One word is perfect. I don't want more. I don't want less. 

When there's some emotion that's really important to the scene and I want the reader to feel it, that's completely different.


----------



## Pluralized

> To me, there's a balance.



The solution for nearly every thread being argued at the moment. People take opposite viewpoints but the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Try starting a thread about _that_, though. You'd be crucified.


----------



## John Oberon

Sam said:


> Humans don't bark. Nor do they growl. Or hiss.
> 
> Unless they're some hybrid mandogsnake.



Of course they do. Those words describe how words are said. A drill sergeant barks orders. A man trying to keep a lid on his anger might growl his words. A person in a situation where silence is at a premium, but who wants to be heard due to some urgency, will often hiss words.


----------



## scrub puller

Yair . . . 

*EmmaSohan

*


> A tell does just fine. One word is perfect. I don't want more. I don't want less.



Your opinion of course, and your writing but, you wrote (say)  . . . .



> "Why now?" Garrison angrily asks.



I suggest   . . . .    

"Why now?" Garrison asks, angry.

Angry, Garrison asks, "Why now?"

It all depends on context of course but, I believe it only on rare occasions the "ly" can't be dispensed with.

(In my opinion) it is not a good plan to tolerate weaker wussy writing "because it's not important to the scene".     

Cheers.


----------



## EmmaSohan

So. Whatever problem there is with "suddenly", "all of a sudden" seems to have the same problem. So that isn't an adverb issue.

scrub puller thinks that changing "angrily" to "angry" solves the problem. But other people seem just as eager to unpack "he sounded angry", again suggesting that adverbs are not the problem.

And I can see how people could use too many adverbs, or not use them correctly, and I can find a lot of potential difficulties. But isn't that a problem with everything? Is there anything uniquely bad about adverbs?

Meanwhile, as Sam noted, all authors use adverbs. I found some questionable usages, if you want to see them. But good authors usually use adverbs well.


----------



## J Anfinson

They are the problem, because they're shortcuts. All of the sudden is also a shortcut. It's not always a bad thing to use a shortcut, but too often or without purpose is lazy. That said, it's up to you to decide whether they meet a purpose. As an example, look at the COF firestarter. My first draft had six or seven -ly adverbs and with just one editing pass I knocked it down to two. Had I not been pressed for time, those wouldn't be there and I could have smoothed out some of the wrinkles. But even though I'm not happy with leaving them, especially viciously, it suits the purpose. I think it would have been so much better to show poe mangling that hand, though. But to each their own.


----------



## Bishop

EmmaSohan said:


> So. Whatever problem there is with "suddenly", "all of a sudden" seems to have the same problem. So that isn't an adverb issue.



There's no inherent issue with adverbs, it's merely that a lot of times, they're more benign than anything.

Suddenly, the car skidded to a halt.

Remove the suddenly:

The car skidded to a halt.

Using "skidded to a halt" elicits an image into the reader's mind. Cars that slow down gradually do not skid. Thus, the suddenly is not needed. Contrast this:

Suddenly, the car stopped.

VS.

The car stopped.

Here, the suddenly adds tonality, but had the writer used the stronger image in the first place (skidding, that is) then the suddenly is entirely irrelevant, AND we get a clearer picture of the car. But as mentioned by others, all of this talk is micromanaging your own writing. If you do this with every sentence on every page, or try to blindly say "all adverbs are bad/weak" you'll end up getting nowhere.  Writing with strong verbs can negate the need for adverbs entirely, similarly can strong adjectives and specific nouns. That isn't to say adverbs are an unnecessary part of the language... they're just sometimes used as a crutch to weaker writing. It's one area of many for a budding author to consider in their prose.


----------



## PiP

I was pondering on the discussion about not using the word suddenly when I noticed this headline on Yahoo news


> *Tributes after Sir David Frost's son Miles dies suddenly at 31*



He didn't just die, as in it could have taken months for him to pass away, his death was sudden and unexpected. So isn't the use of the word suddenly down to context?


----------



## voltigeur

I think  much of what is behind all of the don't use "ly" words or passive verbs etc. Is that beginning writers tend to fall into these traps and over use these words. Some times to ridiculous portions. Like: 


He suddenly found out he was very warily apathetic. :encouragement:

Some times you have to take something off the table to force a new writer into a conscience decision about use. 

I know after I cut these kinds of words from my first draft along with sticky sentences I lose 6 words per hundred. 

I always ask myself if cutting the ly word changes the context.


----------



## InstituteMan

PiP said:


> I was pondering on the discussion about not using the word suddenly when I noticed this headline on Yahoo news
> 
> 
> *Tributes after Sir David Frost's son Miles dies suddenly at 31*
> 
> He didn't just die, as in it could have taken months for him to pass away, his death was sudden and unexpected. So isn't the use of the word suddenly down to context?



Interesting example, PiP. I'm guessing that journalistic practice prevents a strong verb here. It wouldn't do for a reporter to imply (or outright state) more than is known about the death, so all they can say is that it happened "suddenly." This may be an exception that proves the rule.


----------



## J Anfinson

PiP said:


> I was pondering on the discussion about not using the word suddenly when I noticed this headline on Yahoo news
> 
> 
> He didn't just die, as in it could have taken months for him to pass away, his death was sudden and unexpected. So isn't the use of the word suddenly down to context?



I think so. They want to get the point across without elaborating, so it's a good choice to use it.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

PiP said:


> He didn't just die, as in it could have taken months for him to pass away, his death was sudden and unexpected. So isn't the use of the word suddenly down to context?



I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Sometimes things are sudden, and they should be described as such.  Isn't that the whole point of language? Why are we allowed to use some words for description but not others?


----------



## Kevin

_The gun went off. It happened slowly. He didn't jump because it went off so slowly  -_ Yes, I would say you need 'slowly' there.


----------



## Phil Istine

The detergent bubbled up, suddenly.


----------



## scrub puller

Yair. . .*

Tributes after Sir David Frost's son Miles dies suddenly at 31

Tributes after sudden death of Sir David Frost's son Miles at age 31

*As mentioned I have no formal knowledge of English but (to me) the second version reads probably better than original and has no "ly".

Cheers.


----------



## Kyle R

One problem I've found with "suddenly" is it often gets in the way (for me as a reader) when used to start a sentence. (An "introductory adverbial clause," as the grammarians call it.)
George tilted the pistol and peered down the barrel. "Look, I don't know what you're selling me," he said, "but I--"

Suddenly, the gun went off.​
As soon as I read the word "suddenly," I know something's about to happen. It alerts me to expect something here, thus removing the element of surprise, and, ironically, slowing down the suddenness by placing a word there to prepare me for it.

For me, it reads much better without it.
George tilted the pistol and peered down the barrel. "Look, I don't know what you're selling me," he said, "but I--"

The gun went off.
​
If I want to create the impression of suddenness, I prefer to do it in the way the story unfolds, rather than relying on a word to get the idea across. Or, as the old saying goes, "Show, don't tell."

Don't _tell_ me it happens suddenly—make it _feel_ sudden as I read it. If you can do that, then starting with the word "suddenly" is no longer required. 

It's kind of like explaining to the reader the effect you're trying for, rather than just creating the effect with your words.*
Sadly*, Melissa cried in his arms.

*Violently*, Adam punched the bodyguard in the throat.

*Frighteningly*, the door creaked open.

*Suddenly*, the gun went off.

​^ We can probably do without those adverbs. 

Instead of explaining to the reader the narrative effect you're trying to achieve, _trust_ that your storytelling is strong enough to do it for you. If you're a lover of introductory adverbs, try snipping some out of your writing. You might end up liking the results!

Unless you have a specific reason for doing so, there's usually no need to announce the intended narrative effect ahead of time. :encouragement:


----------



## bdcharles

I think the key is to describe the actual goings-on that the adverb serves as shorthand for. For example, if your MC - let's call her Alicia - is walking along the street when ~suddenly~ there's an explosion, we want the writing not only to depict the events, but the suddenness with which they happen. This may involve setting the scene a little harad of time with some info and stylings, whose sole purpose is to give us something to contrast subsequent events against; something to be taken from us to make the event hurt all the more:

Alicia strolled under strands of overhanging wisteria, daydreaming. About Brad; about Cocker, the nine-month-old spaniel with which she had been entrusted; about - 

The front of Green's Hardware dissolved in a flash of sudden white.

Alicia fell to her side. Her basket of fruit rolled away. Shattered glass and timber rained down all around. What had just happened? She looked about herself as echoes of the bomb - it hads to have been a bomb - barrelled down the now-still streets.

So there, it starts out with la-la-la, dreamy thoughts of Brad, a dog. Everything's nice nice nice. What can possibly go wrong, right? We've even got wisteria, for the love of God. That surely offers more protection from evil than some old lucky heather.

Wrong. Bang. Short lines on their own mean danger.

Then we fall, we roll away. Stuff shatters. There's lots of the sort of motion you'd expect following an exploding hardware store. We can then fade in some more silence to give the blast some special emphasis, though this quiet is now tinged with shock. The words themselves are all jaggy. It's about detailing the situaion in exactly the way it would transpire, and then using the right words to portray the images you want.

I do find adverbs are useful though, even as placeholders where you can then go back and fill in. And also, sometimes, your plot simply doesn't warrant that much description. If you swap out one adverb for several lines of text on a thing that is purely a background descriptor, it's sort of a waste of words. If, in the background of this explosion, someone abruptly gets up and walks away, you might want to just use that person as a minor prop, a little background detail without delving deep into the whys and wherefores of what they do and how they go about it.

Hope this is useful  May not work for everyone of course - depends what you want to do, what your goal is etc


----------



## Patrick

Great authors don't pay any attention to these "rules". I laughed while reading Edward St Aubyn's Patrick Melrose novels and coming across "suddenly," at the beginning of a few sentences, as I pictured amateur writers frothing at the mouth.

Just don't litter your writing with them, because they will be completely useless much of the time. Here and there? Make your own decisions. Writers need to think in words, and that's a learning process, and trying to follow every convention blindly is counterproductive. Much of this amounts to the difference between showing and telling, but people usually give awful examples of "show and don't tell" which leaves the amateur writer confused. Here's what they don't tell you: telling is a very important function of writing.


----------



## bdcharles

Patrick said:


> Great authors don't pay any attention to these "rules".



Mmm that's true, but they're aware of them nonetheless as they skirt confidently around them.




Eh? Eh? See what I did there?


----------



## Terry D

Often -- no, not all the time, but often -- adverbs are crutches for writers who are not confident in their ability to deliver the 'punch' they are trying for. If I'm not sure my reader is going to understand that a bomb going off in a crowded market is unexpected, then I might write... Suddenly, an explosion tore through the marketplace. That doesn't sound terrible, but it also doesn't sound like great writing.


----------



## JustRob

Fifty posts on this subject? Suddenly I find it boring. No, maybe I did a bit before but fifty posts certainly induces an extreme awareness of the feeling with remarkable rapidity akin to an explosion.

And yes, I was certain about what I was writing.


----------



## Kyle R

JustRob said:


> Fifty posts on this subject? Suddenly I find it boring. No, maybe I did a bit before but fifty posts certainly induces an extreme awareness of the feeling with remarkable rapidity akin to an explosion.
> 
> And yes, I was certain about what I was writing.



 Touché!

I find "suddenly" more likely to work when dealing with emotions or states of mind, especially when used to convey an abrupt shift. Like this passage from Margaret Atwood:
You take my hand and
I'm suddenly in a bad movie,
it goes on and on and why am I fascinated
​
It's poetry, sure, but I believe the word works well there because it's being used to convey an *internal* shift.

I find "suddenly" less effective when it's used in narration to convey *external* actions or events.

To me, it's a subtle but distinct difference in usage.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

I think what some are missing here is that "suddenly," like any other modifier, is only superfluous if it's redundant.  In the "gun went off" example above, how could the gunshot be anything but sudden? It's not like we could ever write "The gun went off methodically and deliberately" unless we're trying to be funny.

To clarify my earlier post, some things are sudden _that aren't normally considered sudden_.  In those cases, it's fine to use the word.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bishop said:


> Writing with strong verbs can negate the need for adverbs entirely, similarly can strong adjectives and specific nouns. That isn't to say adverbs are an unnecessary part of the language... they're just sometimes used as a crutch to weaker writing. It's one area of many for a budding author to consider in their prose.



Sometimes. But only sometimes.

Thankfully, I was not at work yesterday.

The adverb 'not' can be eliminated by choosing a different verb: "Thankfully, I was home sick yesterday." (Though the author may not want the slight change in meaning.)

But I don't see how you can write a stronger verb to get rid of thankfully. In your passage above, I don't see how you eliminate "sometimes".

Again, "I was thankful I was home sick yesterday" eliminates the adverb of thankfully. But to me the sentence is more complicated grammatically.

Kyle doesn't like the adverb at the start. But "I was thankfully home sick yesterday." has a slightly different meaning. Kyle: Is it better to put thankfully at the end?


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> Sometimes. But only sometimes.
> 
> Thankfully, I was not at work yesterday.
> 
> The adverb 'not' can be eliminated by choosing a different verb: "Thankfully, I was home sick yesterday." (Though the author may not want the slight change in meaning.)
> 
> But I don't see how you can write a stronger verb to get rid of thankfully. In your passage above, I don't see how you eliminate "sometimes".
> 
> Again, "I was thankful I was home sick yesterday" eliminates the adverb of thankfully. But to me the sentence is more complicated grammatically.
> 
> Kyle doesn't like the adverb at the start. But "I was thankfully home sick yesterday." has a slightly different meaning. Kyle: Is it better to put thankfully at the end?



What you are writing there is dialogue. Dialogue is a different beast than narration. People say things like, "Thankfully, I was not at work yesterday" all the time. It's natural and expected. If you were trying to deliver the same message in a first person narration, you could still find a better, more effective way to deliver the message by showing why the character was thankful. 

_I stayed home sick yesterday and missed all the fireworks. Emily told me Benson lost it in the breakroom and started cussing at everyone. I'm glad I missed it. I don't need any more of his crap._


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> Kyle doesn't like the adverb at the start. But "I was thankfully home sick yesterday." has a slightly different meaning. Kyle: Is it better to put thankfully at the end?



It's tricky when you're writing in the voice of a character. Because then, anything goes, really. 

All arguments against using certain words in certain ways kind of fly out the window with dialogue and/or first-person narrators, because maybe this character _likes_ to speak with adverbs, or maybe that character enjoys telling instead of showing, or maybe another character uses terrible analogies and clunky descriptions, because that's just how they talk. 

But me, I'd probably write something like:

"I wasn't at work yesterday. Thank God. One more day listening to those phones ring and I'd have gone ballistic."


----------



## EmmaSohan

Sorry for the confusion, I mean mine thing to be narration and only put it quotes to distinguish from what I was saying about it.


----------



## Bishop

EmmaSohan said:


> Sometimes. But only sometimes.
> 
> Thankfully, I was not at work yesterday.
> 
> The adverb 'not' can be eliminated by choosing a different verb: "Thankfully, I was home sick yesterday." (Though the author may not want the slight change in meaning.)
> 
> But I don't see how you can write a stronger verb to get rid of thankfully. In your passage above, I don't see how you eliminate "sometimes".
> 
> Again, "I was thankful I was home sick yesterday" eliminates the adverb of thankfully. But to me the sentence is more complicated grammatically.
> 
> Kyle doesn't like the adverb at the start. But "I was thankfully home sick yesterday." has a slightly different meaning. Kyle: Is it better to put thankfully at the end?



In that example, 'thankfully' is not necessary. 

Thank God I wasn't at work yesterday.
I can't imagine how bad it was at work yesterday, so glad I missed it.
Once again, I dodged the worthless, dead-end job by calling in sick yesterday.

Is it better or worse than other options? That depends. I feel like the last example there offers us the most insight to the character and his position. "Thankfully, I was not at work yesterday." Why? Did the building blow up? Did Cheryl throw up all over your neighbor's desk? Did you attend your favorite concert instead? With the last example, the reader can see it's because of the state of the job itself. It's clearer, but that's not always what a writer wants. Sometimes, "thankfully" works to convey the exact amount of information the writer wants to.


----------



## JustRob

Thanks Bishop. A little clarity there. The way that we write things is determined by the precise amount of information that we _want_ to convey. Sometimes the story is complicated enough without feeding the reader with circumstantial trivia. I've always been an information technologist in effect, so maybe that's why I react badly (!) to suggestions about adding spurious information. For example specifically naming god as the one thanked is a distraction if god doesn't need to be involved in the story. Doing that could even suggest something about a character's religious beliefs inappropriately. In fact one could even say that it was literally using a _deus ex machina _to avoid using an adverb, but I won't because it might not be.


----------



## Patrick

You can't analyse a sentence beyond a certain point. Stylistic choices at the level of the sentence are so incredibly varied that to even look for the "best" version of that sentence is pointless; it doesn't exist. At some point, when you've rewritten the thing twenty times, you have to abandon a sentence. That's the frustration of being a writer, but it's also one of the great pleasures, as those stylistic choices will amount to the voice of the author and every one is unique. So what you actually get in really great writing is flawed beauty.


----------



## EmmaSohan

I am not seeing a huge difference between

Thankfully I was not at work yesterday
Thank God I was not at work yesterday.
I was not at work yesterday. Thank God.
I was not at work, thankfully.

If 'thankfully' needs to be unpacked or explained, doesn't 'thank God' also need to be unpacked or explained?
If the following makes it obvious that the character is thankful, why would we take out 'thankfully' and not 'Thank God'?
If we can find some stronger verb that makes 'thankfully' unnecessary, wouldn't that same verb make 'thank God' unnecessary?
What is so important about changing 'thankfully' to 'thank God'?

And, why is everyone focusing on changing 'thankfully' and apparently unbothered by the adverb 'yesterday'?


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> I am not seeing a huge difference between
> 
> Thankfully I was not at work yesterday
> Thank God I was not at work yesterday.
> I was not at work yesterday. Thank God.
> I was not at work, thankfully.
> 
> If 'thankfully' needs to be unpacked or explained, doesn't 'thank God' also need to be unpacked or explained?
> If the following makes it obvious that the character is thankful, why would we take out 'thankfully' and not 'Thank God'?
> If we can find some stronger verb that makes 'thankfully' unnecessary, wouldn't that same verb make 'thank God' unnecessary?
> What is so important about changing 'thankfully' to 'thank God'?



Well, maybe it's because this thread is about alternatives to 'ly' adverbs. I don't know, just guessing...



> And, why is everyone focusing on changing 'thankfully' and apparently unbothered by the adverb 'yesterday'?



"Yesterday" is a noun in this case. And a very specific one.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

EmmaSohan said:


> And, why is everyone focusing on changing 'thankfully' and apparently unbothered by the adverb 'yesterday'?



I think it's that one is subjective and one is objective.  If you use the word "thankfully," you're expressing an emotion that's unique to you.  If you use "yesterday," you're defining a point in time that's constant and unequivocal.  "How" adverbs are much more likely to be superfluous than "when" adverbs.


----------



## Bishop

EmmaSohan said:


> I am not seeing a huge difference between
> 
> Thankfully I was not at work yesterday
> Thank God I was not at work yesterday.



The very minimum between these two is the replacement of the basic emotion (relief over not being at work) and supplementing it with not only that emotion, but also a statement about the character. "Thank God" is a particular phrase that gives an indication of the person's upbringing, mental state, potentially religion, but also the time period they live in.

In ancient Greece, no one would have said, "Thank God I wasn't at work yesterday." They might have said, "Thankfully, I wasn't at work yesterday," or "By the beard of Zeus, it's a miracle I avoided my labours yesterday." Specificity like that, in place of adverbs, can make one word give the reader a lot more insight to the character.

Necessary? Probably not. Interesting? I think so. Should you pine over every word like this and try to make it more specific? Hell no. But by practicing this sort of thing throughout your work, you get a habit of writing more specific things like this, and--in my opinion--strengthen your writing.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bishop. It is clear to me that 'thank God' is different from 'thankfully'. One implies the narrator is willing to swear. 'Thankfully' sounds more reverent. And my point is, again, this has nothing to do with adverbs being bad. While you point out how 'thank God' could be more informative, the same can be said about 'thankfully'.

TerryD: Good point, you got me there -- the title is -ly adverbs. And I noticed (and respected) that you were very consistent in limiting your discussion to ly adverbs.

 But . . . first, how much sense does it make to say that adverbs ending in ly have a problem and adverbs ending in something else don't have a problem? Why are we trying to rewrite "He was extremely bright" and ignoring "He was very bright?"

Also adverbs that don't end in ly have some of the same problems. A stronger adjective can often eliminate 'very' and improve writing.

And finally: Most people dislike "All of a sudden" as much as "suddenly"; if they don't like "he said angrily", they also don't like "he said, sounding angry". Which means a lot of the discussion had nothing to do with ly adverbs.


----------



## J Anfinson

Emma: It seems to me you're missing the point. -ly adverbs are not the only thing to consider. It's simply what I chose to discuss because they're often the most glaring. Other modifiers like very are just as unspecific. No, adverbs are not the only thing to look at. They're one of many.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> Bishop. It is clear to me that 'thank God' is different from 'thankfully'. One implies the narrator is willing to swear. 'Thankfully' sounds more reverent. And my point is, again, this has nothing to do with adverbs being bad. While you point out how 'thank God' could be more informative, the same can be said about 'thankfully'.
> 
> TerryD: Good point, you got me there -- the title is -ly adverbs. And I noticed (and respected) that you were very consistent in limiting your discussion to ly adverbs.
> 
> But . . . first, how much sense does it make to say that adverbs ending in ly have a problem and adverbs ending in something else don't have a problem? Why are we trying to rewrite "He was extremely bright" and ignoring "He was very bright?"
> 
> Also adverbs that don't end in ly have some of the same problems. A stronger adjective can often eliminate 'very' and improve writing.
> 
> And finally: Most people dislike "All of a sudden" as much as "suddenly"; if they don't like "he said angrily", they also don't like "he said, sounding angry". Which means a lot of the discussion had nothing to do with ly adverbs.



Those are valid points, Emma. While this thread has been focused primarily on the 'ly's (probably because they are easy to spot), other adverbs can leach the strength from our prose to an equal extent. No one, IMO, who says that we should seek out and kill adverbs actually mean every adverb. Adverbs are handy tools -- like drums in a band. They add much to the overall effect if used correctly, but if every song was drum solo the music would get boring quick_*ly*_.


----------



## JustRob

I know that this thread is specifically about adverbs ending with "ly" but it seems an appropriate place to post this observation. 

I was looking around the Internet to see what grammar checking software existed and found an example which pedantically underlined every adverb. If this package is correct then "not", "never" and "always" are adverbs and hence their use should be avoided. Given that I must conclude that rigorous rule books on "good" writing are themselves "badly" written!

By the way, I won't be in any hurry to use grammar checking software, so there's no need to suggest any.


----------



## Aquilo

JustRob said:


> I was looking around the Internet to see what grammar checking software existed and found an example which pedantically underlined every adverb. If this package is correct then "not", "never" and "always" are adverbs and hence their use should be avoided. Given that I must conclude that rigorous rule books on "good" writing are themselves "badly" written!.



Lol. 

There are numerous adverbs: manner adverbs (scarily) Time adverbs (now, then), place adverbs (there, here) degree adverbs (too (much of something)), frequency adverbs (occasionally, marginally).  
-ly can becomes a problem if they're stacked on top of each other: she said mildly, he was frequently scared etc. It's like with anything: use it too much and the reader starts to see the words, not the images.


----------



## JustRob

Aquilo said:


> Lol.
> ... It's like with anything: use it too much and the reader starts to see the words, not the images.



Glad you saw the joke. I must admit that the words "too much" jumped out at me as an adverbial phrase where I might have used just one word, "excessively", but who counts words?


----------



## EmmaSohan

JustRob said:


> Glad you saw the joke. I must admit that the words "too much" jumped out at me as an adverbial phrase where I might have used just one word, "excessively", but who counts words?



I have never seen anyone complain about adverbial phrases. They do have some of the same problems -- here, a stronger verb (_overuse_) perhaps could replace the need for the adverb or adverbial phrase.

I count words. _Excessively _is, however, 3 morphemes.


----------



## Ezekiel2517

all of the sudden


----------



## Patrick

I am not one to go by these sorts of things, but The Heminway Editor is a good tool for checking just how laden with adverbs your writing is. http://www.hemingwayapp.com/

Analysing the first 3k words of my manuscript, it reports that the readability is good and that I have 23 adverbs when I should be aiming for 24 or less in a document of that size. What's interesting is that the frequency of adverbs increases in the more introspective, psychological passages, which is a conscious choice on my behalf to slow the pace of the novel down. 

It's also good at causing you to consider when you might be being a bit convoluted and slipping into the passive voice (such as in this sentence). Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with more difficult sentences and the passive voice, but the guiding figure it provides is pretty good. I only have 9 (comfortably inside than the 43 -or-fewer recommendation) sentences in the passive voice in my own writing, but just under a quarter of my sentences are either difficult (20) or very difficult (32), by the app's judgement.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Alright. I'll admit it. I'm confused. How does using "suddenly" instead of "all of the sudden" (just an example) slow the pace?


----------



## Terry D

Jack of all trades said:


> Alright. I'll admit it. I'm confused. How does using "suddenly" instead of "all of the sudden" (just an example) slow the pace?



It doesn't. But both will be, in most cases, unnecessary verbiage. Consider this:

1. Rain pattered at the darkened windows as Michelle finished the last of her wine and put the empty glass beside the sink. Yawning and looking forward to a good night's sleep she started toward the bedroom, snuffing out candles as she walked through the cabin. *Suddenly* the front door exploded in a shower of glass and splinters.

2. Rain pattered at the darkened windows as Michelle finished the last of her wine and put the empty glass beside the sink. Yawning and looking forward to a good night's sleep she started toward the bedroom, snuffing out candles as she walked through the cabin. *All of a sudden* the front door exploded in a shower of glass and splinters.

3. Rain pattered at the darkened windows as Michelle finished the last of her wine and put the empty glass beside the sink. Yawning and looking forward to a good night's sleep she started toward the bedroom, snuffing out candles as she walked through the cabin. As she extinguished the final flame, the front door exploded in a shower of glass and splinters.

'Suddenly' and 'all of a sudden' tell me that the following action happened unexpectedly. I don't want to be told that, I want to experience it. In most (but not all) cases, adverbs, 'ly' and otherwise, can be replaced with words that provide a more visual, and visceral, experience.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

Terry D said:


> 'Suddenly' and 'all of a sudden' tell me that the following action happened unexpectedly. I don't want to be told that, I want to experience it. In most (but not all) cases, adverbs, 'ly' and otherwise, can be replaced with words that provide a more visual, and visceral, experience.



That may be so, but you'd better believe "As she extinguished the final flame" reads a lot more slowly than "suddenly."  In fact, because I see your alternatives (though I might not notice it in a book), it's clear you're trying to figure out a way to convey the scene without saying "suddenly," and as a result, you're bloating the sentence.

I understand this is an example for the sake of a forum reply, and probably not indicative of your actual writing technique.  Still, it bears noting that writing around a problem word is just as bad as writing the problem word itself (if not worse).


----------



## Terry D

Gamer_2k4 said:


> That may be so, but you'd better believe "As she extinguished the final flame" reads a lot more slowly than "suddenly."  In fact, because I see your alternatives (though I might not notice it in a book), it's clear you're trying to figure out a way to convey the scene without saying "suddenly," and as a result, you're bloating the sentence.
> 
> I understand this is an example for the sake of a forum reply, and probably not indicative of your actual writing technique.  Still, it bears noting that writing around a problem word is just as bad as writing the problem word itself (if not worse).



Yes, it was a simple example, but I'm not all that interested in speeding up the reading in this example. I'm far more interested in creating the effect of suddenness rather than copping out and telling the reader the action happened 'suddenly'. Someone just kicked in the damned door -- that doesn't usually happen slowly. "Suddenly" or "all of a sudden" are wasted words, IMO. In my example I've placed six soft beats (the rain, finishing the wine, yawning, starting toward the bedroom, snuffing out candles, and the final flame) before the BANG! My replacement for the adjectives also serves the purpose of darkening the room, which, again IMO, is more visual and effective than the alternative. 

Yes it was a contrived demonstration, but pretty accurate to the way I view writing.


----------



## Patrick

The front door exploded. Dark glass and wood splints carved the unlit hall. Heavy boots crunched on a crystal carpet, and a car alarm whined through coiling cones of torch-lit smoke.


----------



## Sam

I don't understand why people can't grasp this simple concept: 

This problem was invented by _writers, _is debated by _writers, _and is promulgated by _writers. _
_
Readers_ do not give a good goddamn whether or not writers use adverbs.


----------



## Patrick

Sam said:


> I don't understand why people can't grasp this simple concept:
> 
> This problem was invented by _writers, _is debated by _writers, _and is promulgated by _writers. _
> _
> Readers_ do not give a good goddamn whether or not writers use adverbs.



I don't mind them either. They are only subject to the same scrutiny as every other word.


----------



## Jack of all trades

I was attempting to understand a remark made by Patrick without specifically quoting him. And my choice of "suddenly" was obviously poor.

So, my apologies to Patrick. Here's the cause of my confusion. 



Patrick said:


> What's interesting is that the frequency of adverbs increases in the more introspective, psychological passages, which is a conscious choice on my behalf to slow the pace of the novel down.


----------



## Patrick

Jack of all trades said:


> I was attempting to understand a remark made by Patrick without specifically quoting him. And my choice of "suddenly" was obviously poor.
> 
> So, my apologies to Patrick. Here's the cause of my confusion.



Suddenly is a bad example because I don't use many adverbs in action scenes, and suddenly most often precedes action. Here's an example from my manuscript, because it proves the point: 

"Alone for *impossibly* long periods, he could never resist the gravity that kept him in orbit about himself. And though he knew it was absurd, the relentless dissection of everything he saw *inevitably* followed, the *highly*-tuned consciousness of his own functions obscuring everything."

Perhaps other contributors in this thread will disagree with my choices here, but the multi-syllabic nature of these adverbs slows the pace, reinforcing the protagonist's weariness. Style is much more about intuiting than it is about what's technically exquisite. The best wordsmiths have a feel for words that goes well beyond what any style guide can advise. The common objections concerning adverbs are really addressing poor composition; the problem is never with one of the many available tools. Writing is not painting by numbers.

I should add that I have no rule against adverbs in action scenes either. The one thing I want to impress on any aspiring writer is that the English language is huge_ly_ dexterous, and it is no detriment to your prose to learn the use of each of its constituents.


----------



## J Anfinson

I don't know if I mentioned this yet, but I was reading Robert McCammon's _They Thirst _and in one chapter he used "suddenly" like six or seven times on one page. Even though I wanted to strangle him, I couldn't have put that book down if my life had depended on it. If you're skilled you can do anything.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Patrick said:


> Suddenly is a bad example because I don't use many adverbs in action scenes, and suddenly most often precedes action. Here's an example from my manuscript, because it proves the point:
> 
> "Alone for *impossibly* long periods, he could never resist the gravity that kept him in orbit about himself. And though he knew it was absurd, the relentless dissection of everything he saw *inevitably* followed, the *highly*-tuned consciousness of his own functions obscuring everything."
> 
> Perhaps other contributors in this thread will disagree with my choices here, but the multi-syllabic nature of these adverbs slows the pace, reinforcing the protagonist's weariness. Style is much more about intuiting than it is about what's technically exquisite. The best wordsmiths have a feel for words that goes well beyond what any style guide can advise. The common objections concerning adverbs are really addressing poor composition; the problem is never with one of the many available tools. Writing is not painting by numbers.
> 
> I should add that I have no rule against adverbs in action scenes either. The one thing I want to impress on any aspiring writer is that the English language is huge_ly_ dexterous, and it is no detriment to your prose to learn the use of each of its constituents.




Thanks for the explanation with the example. 

I find I use adverbs when I am keeping the story moving along quickly, and I don't want a lengthy description slowing things down.

(I can't think of a time that I've used suddenly, by the way. The post at the top of the page mentioned "all of the sudden", which I used for my example.)


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jack of all trades said:


> (I can't think of a time that I've used suddenly, by the way. The post at the top of the page mentioned "all of the sudden", which I used for my example.)



I couldn't make one scene in my book work until I thought of the word _suddenly_. Laughing.

What about the word _sudden_? Is that just as much problem as _suddenly _and_ all of a sudden_?



> "What's that?" I asked, with sudden gravity.
> 
> ...when I was startled by a sudden click in the wall...
> 
> _(Great Expectations)_


----------



## Terry D

J Anfinson said:


> I don't know if I mentioned this yet, but I was reading Robert McCammon's _They Thirst _and in one chapter he used "suddenly" like six or seven times on one page. Even though I wanted to strangle him, I couldn't have put that book down if my life had depended on it. If you're skilled you can do anything.



Funny you should mention that book, Jake. I'm rereading it now after a gap of about 30 years and have noticed his prolific use of adverbs, 'ly' and other wise. The book isn't quite as engrossing as I remembered (still terrific), and I can see a big difference in McCammon's maturity as a writer from They Thirst to his more contemporary work like The Five or Speaks the Nightbird. They Thirst was his fourth novel and he was still a bit rough around the edges.

But we are starting to do some serious hair-splitting here. Adverbs are good words, but, like any other words, they can be used poorly, or over used. Each writer should choose the words which best convey the ideas they want; and they should make sure they know why they chose that word. Inexperienced writers tend to overuse many words - adverbs, dialogue tags, adjectives, and more. That's why so many early pieces are 'over-written'. Not every sentence needs to be an exercise in linguistics. But, we should try to make every sentence the best it can be.


----------



## J Anfinson

Terry D said:


> I can see a big difference in McCammon's maturity as a writer from They Thirst to his more contemporary work like The Five or Speaks the Nightbird.



Absolutely (though I thought The Border was terribly written. I couldn't even read it). But even though some of his early work is packed with things that might make even him cringe today, I've found several of those works to be so engrossing that I don't care how flawed they are. His command of the narrative sucks me in and makes me take a knee for story time whether there's half a page of "suddenly's" or not. The story trumps the mechanics if you have the talent.


----------



## Terry D

J Anfinson said:


> Absolutely (though I thought The Border was terribly written. I couldn't even read it). But even though some of his early work is packed with things that might make even him cringe today, I've found several of those works to be so engrossing that I don't care how flawed they are. His command of the narrative sucks me in and makes me take a knee for story time whether there's half a page of "suddenly's" or not. The story trumps the mechanics if you have the talent.



This is certainly a convoluted craft we've chosen, isn't it?


----------



## Patrick

A story can trump the technical composition, but how many adverbs an author does or doesn't use has nothing to do with how well written it is. It's always relative to subject, and you really can't approach literature as a stylistic pedant, because that will limit you as a writer and as a reader.Some of the writers I've criticised the most initially I have also learnt the most from, James Joyce being the example I always come back to. 

You have to learn from the masters if you want to become one. One of the problems with aspiring writers is that they have been taught to be stylistic pedants by these snobbish "rules" and they end up as literary peasants for it. In the long run, the best writers will be those who have a humble inquiring attitude and who see an opportunity to learn in almost everything they read.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

Sam said:


> I don't understand why people can't grasp this simple concept:
> 
> This problem was invented by _writers, _is debated by _writers, _and is promulgated by _writers. _
> _
> Readers_ do not give a good goddamn whether or not writers use adverbs.



That's only half true, like saying readers don't care about passive voice.  As a component of proper writing, they don't.  But you'd better believe readers notice the difference between a work in active voice and a work in passive voice, even if they don't know exactly why they like one over the other.  I'm sure they notice adverbs (in that sense) as well.


----------



## Sam

Gamer_2k4 said:


> That's only half true, like saying readers don't care about passive voice.  As a component of proper writing, they don't.  But you'd better believe readers notice the difference between a work in active voice and a work in passive voice, even if they don't know exactly why they like one over the other.  I'm sure they notice adverbs (in that sense) as well.



Okay. 

Find me more than one review, written by an everyday reader instead of a critic or book reviewer, on Goodreads or Amazon or the like, that even mentions adverbs. 

You might be lucky to find one. Most reviews focus on one thing and one thing only: the story.


----------



## J Anfinson

You can find plenty of reviews that say, "this book was horribly written". Readers might not pinpoint why (or they aren't able to), but indiscriminate use of adverbs could be a reason among many things. Maybe the dialogue sucked. Maybe the characters acted in unbelievable ways. There's a lot of things writers should think about at some point in their writing process, be it during the first draft (which for some is the only) or the sixth.


----------



## Terry D

Sam said:


> Okay.
> 
> Find me more than one review, written by an everyday reader instead of a critic or book reviewer, on Goodreads or Amazon or the like, that even mentions adverbs.
> 
> You might be lucky to find one. Most reviews focus on one thing and one thing only: the story.



Readers may not consciously pick out the characteristics of poor writing that ruin a story for them, but they do notice when the pace, the flow, or the sound of the writing is poor, or, worse yet, bland. Those flaws come in many forms and added together they produce 'bad writing' and that can ruin a story for a reader even if they don't spend the time to figure out why.

I don't think this discussion is about story vs technique. I think it's about improving the craft of telling a good story. That cannot be summed up in any 'rules' -- and to make it very clear; there is no rule against using adverbs (even the dread 'ly' sort) any more than there is a 'rule' against using 'he ejaculated' as a dialogue tag -- but talking about why some writers pay special attention to them can be a valuable discussion.


----------



## Patrick

J Anfinson said:


> You can find plenty of reviews that say, "this book was horribly written". Readers might not pinpoint why (or they aren't able to), but indiscriminate use of adverbs could be a reason among many things. Maybe the dialogue sucked. Maybe the characters acted in unbelievable ways. There's a lot of things writers should think about at some point in their writing process, be it during the first draft (which for some is the only) or the sixth.



Indiscriminate use of anything will ruin the writing. Adverbs and adjectives get too much attention.

One of the things that irritates me is the use of "purple prose" as a criticism. Adverbs and adjectives are always highlighted as the offending parties when the real problem is bad composition. The music of the sentences is wrong because there are too many long sentences or too many short sentences. The language and imagery isn't varied enough, etc. 

Poetry is the highest form of literature. Of that there is no doubt. Lyrical writing is always a virtue. There is no such thing as "overwritten". The only thing that matters is whether the writing is any good. The language choice and sentence structure should always fit the subject in my philosophy. The writing should be muscular or musical where appropriate, and sometimes it can be both; every component of the English language is a tool, so strive for excellence and show no prejudice when deciding which words should be included in the final draft.


----------



## J Anfinson

Patrick said:


> Indiscriminate use of anything will ruin the writing. Adverbs and adjectives get too much attention.



I think it's because the -ly adverbs are so easy to pick out even when you're skimming. Adjectives are sometimes used as quick, easy descriptions when you could go into better detail, but since they're usually not as glaring I don't notice them as often if I'm hooked into the story enough. But the point of the OP is to show one way to improve writing. There are a lot of ways.


----------



## Terry D

Patrick said:


> There is no such thing as "overwritten".



Sure there is. It happens when a writer wields verbiage like a cudgel, when s/he becomes more intent on impressing than communicating, and when their ego exceeds their skill. Inexperienced writers often feel the need to sound 'writerly.'


----------



## Sam

J Anfinson said:


> I think it's because the -ly adverbs are so easy to pick out even when you're skimming. Adjectives are sometimes used as quick, easy descriptions when you could go into better detail, but since they're usually not as glaring I don't notice them as often if I'm hooked into the story enough. But the point of the OP is to show one way to improve writing. There are a lot of ways.



Why are you picking them out? 

You don't go around picking out words that end in '-ed', do you? But you would if someone told you they were bad. 

The advice to remove all adverbs is bullshit. Like all things in writing, you can overuse them, but they are not bad or weak writing just because Stephen King says they are.


----------



## EmmaSohan

As she extinguished the final flame, the front door suddenly exploded in a shower of glass and splinters.

In my book on punctuation and grammar, I wanted to say that _suddenly _is redundant, doesn't carry any information, isn't needed.

But I couldn't, because the sentence is slightly different with _suddenly_. Adding _suddenly _might even be the winning strategy -- it's simple, exciting, and grabs the reader's attention.

But I like how Terry added to the scene; perhaps the author was hoping the _suddenly _would do too much in the first version.


----------



## Terry D

Sam said:


> Why are you picking them out?
> 
> You don't go around picking out words that end in '-ed', do you? But you would if someone told you they were bad.
> 
> The advice to remove all adverbs is bullshit. Like all things in writing, you can overuse them, but they are not bad or weak writing just because Stephen King says they are.



Such advice is hyperbole, like saying all politicians are crooks, used to make a point that we shouldn't simply use the first word that comes to mind if we are interested in creating an effective narrative. I don't think anyone here has suggested doing away with adverbs, I certainly don't. I'd heard the warning about weak adverbs long before reading King's On Writing. It's just another tool in the toolbox.


----------



## Patrick

Terry D said:


> Sure there is. It happens when a writer wields verbiage like a cudgel, when s/he becomes more intent on impressing than communicating, and when their ego exceeds their skill. Inexperienced writers often feel the need to sound 'writerly.'



That's a string of subjective statements, Terry. Writing is the only art in which artists are criticised for having an ego, something inferred from a high-brow writing style, and striving for mastery of the craft. Why do you think any writer particularly cares whether you (or me) are impressed by their ability? Sorry, Terry, it's all just nonsense and the sort of antagonism typical among writers. I think it's only a writer who can attribute cleverness to a fellow craftsman as a slur.

I like writers of various genres and styles, but I get a bit fed up with the catty nature of writers. There's a lot of truth in what Sam's saying. This entire problem is an invention by writers for writers to henpeck other writers over.


----------



## J Anfinson

I never said to kill them all. I said to examine them. And I don't do anything because King told me to. I do what makes sense to me if someone can provide a compelling case for me to do so. King did make a case for it (though he's quite the hypocrite, isn't he?) but he's only the most famous example to do so. If I learned of a compelling argument to examine all pronouns I might start examining  those closer as well. Do what makes sense to you. And once again I'm picking on adverbs because they're easy to spot. You don't need a beta to point them out.


----------



## Terry D

Patrick said:


> That's a string of subjective statements, Terry. Writing is the only art in which artists are criticised for having an ego, something inferred from a high-brow writing style, and striving for mastery of the craft. Why do you think any writer particularly cares whether you (or me) are impressed by their ability? Sorry, Terry, it's all just nonsense and the sort of antagonism typical among writers. I think it's only a writer who can attribute cleverness to a fellow craftsman as a slur.
> 
> I like writers of various genres and styles, but I get a bit fed up with the catty nature of writers. There's a lot of truth in what Sam's saying. This entire problem is an invention by writers for writers to henpeck other writers over.



Every bit of this discussion is subjective, your comments as well as mine. I'm sorry if you took my comments personally, but I never criticized "high-brow", whatever the hell that is, writers. I simply pointed out that many inexperienced writers confuse vocabulary and obfuscation with content. I also did not criticize ego -- most good writers have a healthy, maybe a little more than healthy, one. We need to believe in ourselves, the business is brutal, the craft lonely, but too often I see writers who consider themselves smarter than their readers and try to prove it at every opportunity. They are often more concerned with sounding like an artist than with being one.

I wasn't being antagonistic. I was simply stating my opinion on what constitutes over-writing, and, even though you obviously disagree, I don't think my opinion, based on more than 30 years of writing experience, is "nonsense".


----------



## Patrick

Terry D said:


> Every bit of this discussion is subjective, your comments as well as mine. I'm sorry if you took my comments personally, but I never criticized "high-brow", whatever the hell that is, writers. I simply pointed out that many inexperienced writers confuse vocabulary and obfuscation with content. I also did not criticize ego -- most good writers have a healthy, maybe a little more than healthy, one. We need to believe in ourselves, the business is brutal, the craft lonely, but too often I see writers who consider themselves smarter than their readers and try to prove it at every opportunity. They are often more concerned with sounding like an artist than with being one.
> 
> I wasn't being antagonistic. I was simply stating my opinion on what constitutes over-writing, and, even though you obviously disagree, I don't think my opinion, based on more than 30 years of writing experience, is "nonsense".



I don't take it personally, Terry. I've just seen similar comments to these made about talented but inexperienced writers many times before. I concede that the conversation is mostly subjective, but my intention is to focus on what's possible rather than to shoot people down for expressing themselves in a way other writers frown upon. 

We've both been writing for long enough to know that you can't judge a writer's intentions by the extent of their vocabulary or how clear/muddled their prose is. Perhaps you feel as though these inexperienced writers are desperately trying to impress; I think they're probably just trying to find their own voice/style for the most part. I try to view them with compassion because writers often are awkward creatures searching for a foothold and some recognition that affirms they're on the right path.


----------



## Terry D

Patrick said:


> I don't take it personally, Terry. I've just seen similar comments to these made about talented but inexperienced writers many times before. I concede that the conversation is mostly subjective, but my intention is to focus on what's possible rather than to shoot people down for expressing themselves in a way other writers frown upon.
> 
> We've both been writing for long enough to know that you can't judge a writer's intentions by the extent of their vocabulary or how clear/muddled their prose is. Perhaps you feel as though these inexperienced writers are desperately trying to impress; I think they're probably just trying to find their own voice/style for the most part. I try to view them with compassion because writers often are awkward creatures searching for a foothold and some recognition that affirms they're on the right path.



I really don't care about their motives. We all want to become more skilled with our writing. I was referring to the result; cumbersome, unnecessarily convoluted, heavy-handed prose. Compassion for the writer has nothing to do with it. We started out here talking about ways to make 'ly' adverbs into something more precise, but, like most topics on these boards, we've devolved into trench warfare.


----------



## Sam

J Anfinson said:


> I never* (adverb) *said to kill them all. I said to examine them. And I don't do anything because King told me to. I do what makes sense to me if someone can provide a compelling case for me to do so *(adverb)*. King did make a case for it (though he's quite *(adverb)* the hypocrite, isn't he?) but he's only *(adverb)* the most famous example to do so *(adverb)*. If I learned of a compelling argument to examine all pronouns I might start examining  those closer as well. Do what makes sense to you. And once *(adverb)* again *(adverb)*I'm picking on adverbs because they're easy to spot. You don't need a beta to point them out *(adverb)*.



Only one of those adverbs ends in '-ly'. The rest of them don't. Should we remove the adverbs that don't end in '-ly'? What makes them so much better? 

What about adjectives that end in '-ly'? Early, cowardly, brotherly, scholarly, hourly, nightly, rarely, timely, weekly, bubbly, crinkly, frizzly, smelly, cuddly -- and dozens of others. Should they be carefully monitored as well? 

What about nouns that end in '-ly'? Ally, assembly, bully, family, homily, jelly, monopoly, supply, reply, tally -- _et al. _Should we be getting out the red pen and stroking those out out as well? 

We might as well stroke out anything that ends in '-ly'. Dragonfly? Nah, sorry, we can't use that. Gadfly? Crap. Butterfly? Damn. Horsefly? Shit. 

_That _is why it is crappy advice.


----------



## Patrick

Terry D said:


> I really don't care about their motives. We all want to become more skilled with our writing. I was referring to the result; cumbersome, unnecessarily convoluted, heavy-handed prose. Compassion for the writer has nothing to do with it. We started out here talking about ways to make 'ly' adverbs into something more precise, but, like most topics on these boards, we've devolved into trench warfare.



Not at all, Terry, but we do share a disagreement. I don't accept the concept of overwriting; there are too many ways to present an idea. It's based on the same principle as my objection to the notion of "purple prose". Some writers take a page to describe the content of a medicine cabinet, others will perhaps eschew all medical detail and describe only the sound of the door clicking shut and perhaps the face suspended in the mirror, and another will simply say the protagonist took something from the medicine cabinet...

Using reductio ad absurdum, great literature would be defined as Hemingway's famous six-word novel. "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." But it isn't. The number of words used to express an idea is not what we base our judgements on.

To infer ego from a lack of precision in the prose/a wordy style is reading something into the writer's motives.


----------



## Terry D

Sam said:


> Only one of those adverbs ends in '-ly'. The rest of them don't. Should we remove the adverbs that don't end in '-ly'? What makes them so much better?
> 
> What about adjectives that end in '-ly'? Early, cowardly, brotherly, scholarly, hourly, nightly, rarely, timely, weekly, bubbly, crinkly, frizzly, smelly, cuddly -- and dozens of others. Should they be carefully monitored as well?
> 
> What about nouns that end in '-ly'? Ally, assembly, bully, family, homily, jelly, monopoly, supply, reply, tally -- _et al. _Should we be getting out the red pen and stroking those out out as well?
> 
> We might as well stroke out anything that ends in '-ly'. Dragonfly? Nah, sorry, we can't use that. Gadfly? Crap. Butterfly? Damn. Horsefly? Shit.
> 
> _That _is why it is crappy advice.



It isn't about the '-ly', and no one ever _seriously_ suggested eliminating all adverbs -- no one -- ever.

If suggesting that writers take the time to try and find the most accurate and effective way to use their verbs is crappy advice, then there probably isn't any good advice.


----------



## J Anfinson

Right on, Terry. It's about adverbs that are unspecific and weak. If the story is better with using a glaring suddenly then by all means leave it. If it disrupts or could be improved then find another way. It's my opinion so take it or toss it. Nobody is going to hurt my feelings over it.


----------



## ppsage

-ly adverbs are telling usually and it doesn't hurt to see if that's what's wanted there. Everybody knows this. Scads of -ly adverbs might indicate a text which maybe lacks the immediacy that showing brings. Everybody knows this. But in any case, they're not the ultimate moral compass, if that's what everybody's worried about.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

Patrick said:


> Why do you think any writer particularly cares whether you (or me) are impressed by their ability? Sorry, Terry, it's all just nonsense and the sort of antagonism typical among writers. I think it's only a writer who can attribute cleverness to a fellow craftsman as a slur.



Just like readers don't overtly notice adverbs, writers don't overtly notice their own attempts to showcase their ability.  Still, writing beyond one's own ability is something that happens to all of us, and it truly does make our writing worse.  There was a section in the first draft of my novel where I unconsciously tried to mimic the style of C. S. Lewis, one of my favorite authors.  As a result, the passage seemed forced and out of place, and it did my story and myself a disservice.  In trying to write beyond my ability (not for anyone but myself, and even then not consciously), I only hurt my writing.



Sam said:


> Only one of those adverbs ends in '-ly'. The rest of them don't. Should we remove the adverbs that don't end in '-ly'? What makes them so much better?
> 
> What about adjectives that end in '-ly'? Early, cowardly, brotherly, scholarly, hourly, nightly, rarely, timely, weekly, bubbly, crinkly, frizzly, smelly, cuddly -- and dozens of others. Should they be carefully monitored as well?
> 
> What about nouns that end in '-ly'? Ally, assembly, bully, family, homily, jelly, monopoly, supply, reply, tally -- _et al. _Should we be getting out the red pen and stroking those out out as well?
> 
> We might as well stroke out anything that ends in '-ly'. Dragonfly? Nah, sorry, we can't use that. Gadfly? Crap. Butterfly? Damn. Horsefly? Shit.
> 
> _That _is why it is crappy advice.



The difference between -ly adverbs and the rest that you listed is that, very often, "verb and -ly adverb" can be simplified to "better verb."  Yes, "twice" may be an adverb, but "I went to the store twice" can't be shortened in any way.  On the other hand, "he moved quickly through the door" can be shorted to "he hurried through the door."  The English language has a wealth of words for us to use in our work, and because of *how* they modify verbs, -ly adverbs *can* (not always, of course) be a symptom of an unnecessarily limited writing vocabulary.


----------



## Patrick

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Just like readers don't overtly notice adverbs, writers don't overtly notice their own attempts to showcase their ability.  Still, writing beyond one's own ability is something that happens to all of us, and it truly does make our writing worse.  There was a section in the first draft of my novel where I unconsciously tried to mimic the style of C. S. Lewis, one of my favorite authors.  As a result, the passage seemed forced and out of place, and it did my story and myself a disservice.  In trying to write beyond my ability (not for anyone but myself, and even then not consciously), I only hurt my writing.



That's a problem of imitation. I don't understand what writing beyond your ability means. Either you are able to do it or you are not. As far as I can see, this is another variation of the old don't-try-to-be-clever stick. I agree; just be clever.



> The difference between -ly adverbs and the rest that you listed is that, very often, "verb and -ly adverb" can be simplified to "better verb."  Yes, "twice" may be an adverb, but "I went to the store twice" can't be shortened in any way.  On the other hand, *"he moved quickly through the door" can be shorted to "he hurried through the door."*  The English language has a wealth of words for us to use in our work, and because of *how* they modify verbs, -ly adverbs *can* (not always, of course) be a symptom of an unnecessarily limited writing vocabulary.



I think the fact that both sentences casually disregard physics is a bigger problem, unless _he _​is the risen Christ.


----------

