Adjectives and Adverbs

[laboi_22]

Many contemporary writing advice manuals tell us to avoid adverbs and their dubious conspirators, adjectives. Certainly, overuse of adverbs and adjectives make writing unnecessarily verbose and flowery. Often, the use of an adverb or adjective is unnecessary, or even worst, masks an ineffectual verb or noun. We cannot, however, strip our writing completely of these ubiquitous modifiers. How, then, can we achieve and effective balance between our use--on the one hand--nouns and verbs, and--on the other--adverbs and adjectives.

[zarch]

Choose nouns and verbs that don't need help. Instead of saying "he quickly ran out the door" say "he sprinted." Instead of saying "My sister, the forever ugly witch, ratted me out again" say "My sister, the beast, ratted me out again." .....or whatever.

[Perks]

One of my big editing projects for my ms was to do a string search for the letters 'ly' (I know that not all adverbs end in 'ly,' but you can splat a lot of flies with that swatter.) When I encountered an adverb, I'd see if I could write it out. For example:


She crossed the lawn slowly.

I would look at that sentence and think, "Okay, what else would convey that it took some considerable time for her to get from one side of the yard to the other."

She strolled the length of the yard, amused by the spectcle of her piebald cat arbitrating a dispute between two wrens squabbling over rights to the birdbath.

(This is a quick and clumsy example, but hopefully, you can see what I'm saying. You can tell that she wasn't in a hurry and that she was in a good enough mood to be amused by her cat's adventures. I think it conjures a nice summer day.)

It was an enormous undertaking, but I would say I improved my story by 75% in one pass.

[maestrowork]

Or simply:

She strolled across the lawn.

[stranger]

I think this is an overused piece of advice. I read my favourite books and look at the adjectives and adverbs they use. They use plenty of them. Would the book be better without most of them-- no, I don't think so. Would most beginners' writings be better off without the adverbs/adjectives-- maybe, that's a different story.

I accept that:
She strolled across the lawn
is much better than:
She crossed the lawn slowly
but not all adverbs and adjectives can be removed so easily.

Also genre and style can effect the number of adverbs/adjectives in a piece of writing.

Trust your ear not 'the rules'.

[maestrowork]

I will contest, though, that most adverbs can be replaced if we just try a little harder. Not too much.


Let's do an experiment. Pick out one of your favorite books (say, Harry Potter series) and post a few "-ly" phrases (Rowling uses a lot). See if we can change them for the better in just 2 minutes...

[Roger J Carlson]

. I read my favourite books and look at the adjectives and adverbs they use. They use plenty of them.How many of these were published recently? If editors and agents believe the "very few adverbs" line, then your work with plenty of adverbs won't even see the light of day to prove the advice wrong. Writing styles change with time. This is one of those changes.

[stranger]

How many of these were published recently? If editors and agents believe the "very few adverbs" line, then your work with plenty of adverbs won't even see the light of day to prove the advice wrong. Writing styles change with time. This is one of those changes.

The book I'm (re)reading at the moment is George RR Martin's Song of Fire and Ice series. Big thick fantasy. Crammed with adjectives. Not as many adverbs but there's a scattering of them. Maestro mentioned JK Rowling uses many adverbs. I recently read the assassin's apprentice series by Robin Hobb. Crammed with adverbs. (I read the first book before I heard of this no adverbs rule and only noticed all the adverbs in the second book because I was looking for them) All these authors were published and are very successful.

I have no idea if editors and agents believe the "very few adverbs" line, but I imagine that most of them are looking for a good well-written story which is what a reader will be looking for. I remember reading that the second agent JK Rowling applied to picked her up. Could the first agent have read the chapters, seen the adverbs, and dismissed the book?

An example I remember from a book of a very good use of an abverb. And to tag dialogue. Criminal. (I can't remember it exactly but it went something like this)

Scene with a husband and wife. Husband was with ex-girlfriend for years but hasn't spoken to her in a long time. He just gets off the phone.
"Who was that?" asked Mary.
"My ex-girlfriend. I told you about her. Susan. Our cat died. She wanted to know if I wanted to go to the pet cemetery with her."
"Are you going over," she said flatly.
"I suppose I should."

The word 'flatly' here indicates the wife's silent disapproval. Eloquently.

[azbikergirl]

I've been reading Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy, in which she makes abundant use of strong nouns, adjectives, strong verbs and adverbs. She also Tells a lot, and includes an occasional POV shift (which we can accept as the narrator's supposition of what someone else thought or felt).

Returning to my favorite carpentry metaphor, how fine a piece of furniture can a beginner make if he limits his tools to a hammer and screwdriver? A master craftsman allows himself an entire toolchestful; why can't I? My conclusion is that once we master the hammer and screwdriver, it's time to begin allowing ourselves some of the other tools, but only to supplement the basics, never to replace them.

[maestrowork]

Occasional use of abverbs, in cases where the dialogue alone can't be sufficient enough to indicate the tone of voice, is okay. In the above example, "flatly" is fine. One can argue if another way is better to show her disapproval (such as an action or some other words she could say). But "flatly" is quick and easy.

Now, if you do this, I will have to smack you:

"Who was that?" asked Mary coldly.
"My ex-girlfriend," he said bluntly. "I told you about her. Susan. Our cat died. She wanted to know if I wanted to go to the pet cemetery with her."
"Are you going over," she said flatly.
"I suppose I should," he said happily.

[laboi_22]

Wow very good response guys. Thanks for all the advice. I do agree that ly is a problem. My writing uses lots of adverds and everyone tells me its crap so I'm just looking for ways to change. Also whats the deal with showing not telling. Hell the whole point of writing a book is to tell a story. Whats the diffrence

His face turned red with anxiety

v/s

His cheeks burned red like fire before he could write his name on the top of his examination.

Writing is so fickle is'nt it. LOL. Thanks again guys

Justin

[maestrowork]

Justin, I think you have the "show vs. tell" confused. It's not about saying the same thing with 20 more words. ;)

Tell:

He was angry.


Show:

He clenched his fists and pounded on the window and screamed at the top of his lungs.

[Perks]

Occasional use of abverbs, in cases where the dialogue alone can't be sufficient enough to indicate the tone of voice, is okay. In the above example, "flatly" is fine. One can argue if another way is better to show her disapproval (such as an action or some other words she could say). But "flatly" is quick and easy.

Now, if you do this, I will have to smack you:

"Who was that?" asked Mary coldly.
"My ex-girlfriend," he said bluntly. "I told you about her. Susan. Our cat died. She wanted to know if I wanted to go to the pet cemetery with her."
"Are you going over," she said flatly.
"I suppose I should," he said happily.

Hee hee! That reminds me of one of my pet peeves. He said/she said:

"That was Sue on the phone," he said.
"She shouldn't call here," she said.
"She was sad about the cat, our cat. It died, give her a break," he said.
"Oh, I'll give her a break alright," she said.
"Don't get bitchy," he said.


I know that 'he said' or 'she said' is very expedient. But in a dialogue driven piece, it can be a millstone. I love writing dialogue, so I found that describing what the speaker is doing while speaking will release you from having to identify the speaker at every full stop. It's also a great way to show not tell, at least in characterization.

[laboi_22]

Ok I think I've got it:

instead of writing: The dog restlessly waited by the door.

You could write: The dog, waiting by the door, jumped up and down and looked towards his ower back and forth.

This would mean that the dog was restless or nervous without using that adverb. If I'm right then by golly I've got it. And would I be write in saying that I've show instead of told?

Thanks again. I think I've got it.

[maestrowork]

By George I think he's got it!

[laboi_22]

Thanks so much you guys don't know how much that helped me!

[trebuchet]

I know that 'he said' or 'she said' is very expedient. But in a dialogue driven piece, it can be a millstone. I love writing dialogue, so I found that describing what the speaker is doing while speaking will release you from having to identify the speaker at every full stop. It's also a great way to show not tell, at least in characterization.

I agree. Dialog tags, with or without adverbs, at the end of every statement can bog things down. They suck away at the power of the words. Well-written dialog should, well, speak for itself.

[laboi_22]

So now that I have figured it out someone please read over this and tell me if I've used to many adverbs or adjectives for that matter. Thanks

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14837

[jules]

I've been reading Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy, in which she makes abundant use of strong nouns, adjectives, strong verbs and adverbs. She also Tells a lot, and includes an occasional POV shift (which we can accept as the narrator's supposition of what someone else thought or felt).

These books are in 1st person, though, which gives you a lot more scope to play around with the language: it's like writing dialogue in a way; you're trying to emulate a style which your character might one day write an account of his story in. And while Fitz was well educated, he'd almost certainly never spent much time on the finer points of narrative style. It just wouldn't be necessary in his line of work.

I don't remember any POV shifting from the story, although it's worth noting that Fitz has a variety of telepathic abilities and does sometimes literally see things through other characters' eyes.

[Mistook]

I agree. Dialog tags, with or without adverbs, at the end of every statement can bog things down. They suck away at the power of the words. Well-written dialog should, well, speak for itself.




In two-party dialogue, I only use tags in the first few lines to establish the order and then go "tag-free" for as long as possible. When it comes time to tag the speaker, either to avoid confusion, or to indicate a reaction, I almost never use "said".

Flicking at his cigarette butt, he glanced toward the door. "The shipment should've come by now."

Or if it's two men talking, I might give a name, rather than "he".

When there are three or more people engrossed in the same conversation, I tend to use more name-tags to keep it clear who's speaking, but I've found that you can drop them completely if one speaker makes clear who will be next to speak:

Joe looked at Jane, "What do you mean?"
"The shipment never existed. You were conned!"
"Dammit!"
Lyle said, "Calm down. We're not beat yet."


But whenever I use tags, I put them at the front. It's a peeve of mine, but I hate reading a line of dialogue, assuming it's Mrs. Farnsworth, only to see at the end of the line that it's actually the gardener.

[Perks]

In two-party dialogue, I only use tags in the first few lines to establish the order and then go "tag-free" for as long as possible. When it comes time to tag the speaker, either to avoid confusion, or to indicate a reaction, I almost never use "said".

Flicking at his cigarette butt, he glanced toward the door. "The shipment should've come by now."

Or if it's two men talking, I might give a name, rather than "he".

When there are three or more people engrossed in the same conversation, I tend to use more name-tags to keep it clear who's speaking, but I've found that you can drop them completely if one speaker makes clear who will be next to speak:

Joe looked at Jane, "What do you mean?"
"The shipment never existed. You were conned!"
"Dammit!"
Lyle said, "Calm down. We're not beat yet."


But whenever I use tags, I put them at the front. It's a peeve of mine, but I hate reading a line of dialogue, assuming it's Mrs. Farnsworth, only to see at the end of the line that it's actually the gardener.

So true. I love dialogue so much. I mean, honestly, life's plots are usually dialogue driven. If you can get it right it's such a gas. I really enjoy avoiding 'he said/she said.'

[trebuchet]

Me, too.

[Jamesaritchie]

The only thing I'd add is that the rules are different when writing primarily for children/young adults, as Rowling does. Adjectives & adverbs play much better with the younger crowd, and so does explaining the dialogue.

The young are less experienced readers, and often enjoy adjectives and adverbs that an adult would trip over. They also have less experience with dialogue, and sometimes need explanations that adults shun.

Exciting to a child often means dull to an adult, and overwritten to an adult often means just right to a child.

[maestrowork]

You're right, James. I don't usually read YA or children's books. I sometimes find Rowling's prose juvenile, even though I like her stories and characters. Then again, I am not a child...

[ted_curtis]

The only thing I'd add is that the rules are different when writing primarily for children/young adults, as Rowling does. Adjectives & adverbs play much better with the younger crowd, and so does explaining the dialogue.

The young are less experienced readers, and often enjoy adjectives and adverbs that an adult would trip over. They also have less experience with dialogue, and sometimes need explanations that adults shun.

Exciting to a child often means dull to an adult, and overwritten to an adult often means just right to a child.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. Rowling, for example, is very popular with adults as well as children. And most picture books are bought by adults to be read aloud to kids, so they have to appeal to both audiences. Just like adult fiction, good verbs and nouns are preferable to weak ones -- sometimes more so because of the word restrictions.

Ted

[Mistook]

I'm not sure if I agree with this. Rowling, for example, is very popular with adults as well as children. And most picture books are bought by adults to be read aloud to kids, so they have to appeal to both audiences. Just like adult fiction, good verbs and nouns are preferable to weak ones -- sometimes more so because of the word restrictions.

Ted


Rowling probably wouldn't have such an appeal to adults if it weren't assumed from the get-go that the stories were aimed at a younger audience.

I think the reverse also works. If a work of fairly predictable pulp is played up as being "for mature audiences only!" you can be sure the kiddies'll eat it up.

[HConn]

The young are less experienced readers, and often enjoy adjectives and adverbs that an adult would trip over. They also have less experience with dialogue, and sometimes need explanations that adults shun.

Exactly. All the picture books I read to my son have a dialog tag for every single block of dialog. It began to annoy me.

Then I read him a book where a single "he said" had been dropped from the text, and he stopped me and asked who said that line. Of course, he's very young, but....

Books for kids are different. They have to be.

[Mistook]

Exactly. All the picture books I read to my son have a dialog tag for every single block of dialog. It began to annoy me.

Then I read him a book where a single "he said" had been dropped from the text, and he stopped me and asked who said that line. Of course, he's very young, but....

Books for kids are different. They have to be.


When you think about it, written dialogue is fairly abstract. Who hasn't seen work by teens and even adults where the separation into paragraphs is confused.

I should note, many amateur fanfic writers online don't even bother with the conventions of quotation marks, and instead write dialogue in screenplay style:

JOE: There's no time! The bomb will go off any second!

MARY: What bomb? That's my alarm clock!

[AnnaT]

But whenever I use tags, I put them at the front. It's a peeve of mine, but I hate reading a line of dialogue, assuming it's Mrs. Farnsworth, only to see at the end of the line that it's actually the gardener.

That's interesting! I read once not to do that, because the writer is presenting an action that hasn't happened. The reader reads "she said" but "she" didn't actually say anything yet. This stuck in my mind.

Raymond Feist does it all the time, though.

[Mistook]

That's interesting! I read once not to do that, because the writer is presenting an action that hasn't happened. The reader reads "she said" but "she" didn't actually say anything yet. This stuck in my mind.

Raymond Feist does it all the time, though.


But we're in the past tense.

[reph]

I read once not to do that . . . The reader reads "she said" but "she" didn't actually say anything yet.
That's strange advice. You have to be able to write–

She cleared her throat and announced: "All customers who want refunds, please form a line."

You can't write–

"All customers who want refunds, please form a line," she cleared her throat and announced.

[loquax]

'said' has always been an invisible tag. But IMO, when it's put before the dialogue, it becomes visible. I prefer to split the line into two, and have the tag in the middle. Taking Mistook's line

Lyle said, "Calm down. We're not beat yet."

I would write:

"Calm down," said Lyle. "We're not beat yet."

It's not hard for the reader to subconsciously slip ahead of the 'calm down' to realise that the person speaking is Lyle.

Reph's example is true, but it complicates the action of speaking with other actions. As the throat clearing has to come before the speaking, it would make sense to write it before. Said-bookisms can come either before or after the dialogue, depending on the actions tacked onto them. Take for example:

"I hope I don't die," he announced, and died on the spot.

rather than:

He announced, and died on the spot, "I hope I don't die."

[maestrowork]

Maybe I'm weird, but I never have problems figuring out who is talking when the tags are after the actual dialogue.

[stranger]

Maybe I'm weird, but I never have problems figuring out who is talking when the tags are after the actual dialogue.

I have to agree with that. No need to put the tag before the speaker, methinks.

What I do hate with dialogue is when there are 6,8 sentences or more in a row with no tags (and no actions) and I lose track of who is talking and I have to count back in twos to find the last dialogue with a tag (and then count forward again). Worth throwing in extra tags (or actions) just to avoid making the reader do that.

[maestrowork]

I have to agree with that. No need to put the tag before the speaker, methinks.

What I do hate with dialogue is when there are 6,8 sentences or more in a row with no tags (and no actions) and I lose track of who is talking and I have to count back in twos to find the last dialogue with a tag (and then count forward again). Worth throwing in extra tags (or actions) just to avoid making the reader do that.

Right. The key here is clarity and consistency. If you're clear to your readers, you can do just about anything. If you have a long dialogue (which I try to avoid anyway -- not many people give speeches when they talk), it's good to add a tag or action to break up the dialogue + add clarity.

[reph]

As the throat clearing has to come before the speaking, it would make sense to write it before.
Right, but that isn't the only reason I can't make sense of what Anna read once: that you don't put a speech tag like "she said" first, because "she" hasn't "said" anything yet.

You have to put the tag somewhere. If you put it after the speech:

"I got an A in math," she said.

then the speech appears before the attribution. It hangs out there by itself, at the beginning of the line. Only later (using the kind of reasoning that Anna's source exhibits) do we learn that these words were said by her. What sort of entity are they before that point? A speech can't exist without a speaker.

Name of speaker, "said," speech: subject, transitive verb, object.

He lit a match.

"He," "lit," "a match": subject, transitive verb, object. Are we going to say that "He lit" can't come before "a match" because there isn't anything for him to light yet? Absurd.

[loquax]

I think you're stumbling onto one of the many strange querks of the English language. Other languages have the noun first and the verb second. It's not so crazy now I think about it.

[Mistook]

I think you're stumbling onto one of the many strange querks of the English language. Other languages have the noun first and the verb second. It's not so crazy now I think about it.


That's the Yoda syndrome.

"A match he lit. Yeees!"

[maestrowork]

very neat inversion can be.

[loquax]

Cue Starwars hijack. I mean; Starwars hijack, cue.

[Jamesaritchie]

That's strange advice. You have to be able to write–

She cleared her throat and announced: "All customers who want refunds, please form a line."

You can't write–

"All customers who want refunds, please form a line," she cleared her throat and announced.

Even better is:
She cleared her throat. "All customers who want refunds, please form a line."

[Anatole Ghio]

When your characters are distinct, and the dialogue is well written enough to represent the unique voice of the characters, tags will be unnecessary because it will be immediately clear to the reader what character is speaking which line of dialogue.

[brinkett]

I've read that before, but I don't quite buy it. I listen to people around me talk and much of what distinguishes them from each other is what you wouldn't include in dialogue, like um's, you know's, or how they say things--not word choice, but when they tend to pause and how they pronounce words. There are exceptions, but having every character speak in an obviously different way wouldn't be realistic, IMO.

[reph]

I listen to people around me talk and much of what distinguishes them from each other is what you wouldn't include in dialogue....
If characters all belong to the same speech community, they won't sound different in the way 'Enry 'Iggins and Eliza Doolittle did. But what they say helps to distinguish them. Suppose you have one character who boasts and answers questions defensively, for instance.

[brinkett]

True, but I doubt they'll speak in their unique voice ALL the time. They'd be pretty one dimensional if they did. For example, a character who tends to use big falutin' words will say "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" or other simple phrases occasionally. There will be times when you can tell who's speaking without the tag, but you'll never get to the point where you can completely eliminate tags.

[Mistook]

True, but I doubt they'll speak in their unique voice ALL the time. They'd be pretty one dimensional if they did. For example, a character who tends to use big falutin' words will say "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" or other simple phrases occasionally. There will be times when you can tell who's speaking without the tag, but you'll never get to the point where you can completely eliminate tags.

I'd agree with you. I was going to post more or less the same sentiment last night.

[Jamesaritchie]

By and large, each character should have a unique voice. This doesn't mean one speaks cockney and the other deep south, but good characters should have unique voices. Real people certainly have them, even if it's subtle.

There are xertainly times when character tags will have to be used, but these times are the exceptions, not the rule.

Even five people raised in the same small town, who all have tyhe same education level, who all have the same accent and dialect, will still have five different personalities, and this should show through their speech. They will likely have different favorites when it comes to TV shows, they will have different reading habits, different hobbies and interests, etc. Each of these things will affect their word choice and speech.

And WHAT a character says, as well as WHO he says it to, and WHEN he says it, can very clearly label a speaker. Even if the entire dialogue is "No," what, who, and when can label the character without the need of a character tag.

But there are times when characters tags are the best choice, and too much repetition on any method can be bad. Variation is always a good thing.

[Button]

Now you all have me checking for every "ly" and tag in my story. Thanks. :p

My guess is that it is okay to do almost anything, as long as the words flow and the story is REALLY good. IE if you read it aloud and it sounds akward, something needs changing.

[Jamesaritchie]

Now you all have me checking for every "ly" and tag in my story. Thanks. :p

My guess is that it is okay to do almost anything, as long as the words flow and the story is REALLY good. IE if you read it aloud and it sounds akward, something needs changing.

In the end, you can whatever you want, however you want, if you can make it work. It's just that some things take less effort to make work than others.