Any such thing as a good adverb?

[lucidzfl]

So as I've been writing, I obviously have done my best to avoid adverbs. I think as a rookie writer who's learning to craft a story, its right to ignore them.

But I've ended up in a position where sometimes I feel like the adverbs are stronger than any verbs.

My recent examples:
Wistfully
Emphatically.

Perhaps I don't have a good enough vocabulary, but the desire for someone to look wistfully at someone, (or cast a wistful glance) or shake their head emphatically seems important.

At what point can you ignore the adverb rule and choose strong adverbs?

[scarletpeaches]

If it works, you can use them.

[backslashbaby]

They are still going to be 'telling' instead of 'showing', but sometimes that's the best for what you are trying to do. It depends on why you chose them, imho.

[ChaosTitan]

Adverbs are part of your Writer's Toolbox. They exist for a reason. As sp said, if it works, use them.

[maestrowork]

"Then" is a nice adverb.

[dolores haze]

A little adverbosity goes a long, long way.

[lucidzfl]

I see some new authors trying so hard to use a "strong" verb that they write themselves out of sounding natural.

I very, very rarely use adverbs, but some of them just sound correct.

[The Lonely One]

Adverbs are part of your Writer's Toolbox. They exist for a reason. As sp said, if it works, use them.

Exactly. No part of the language should be off limits. Of course adverbs are fine, better than fine, they're perfect, where and when they fit the best.

I don't understand the aversion to using any part of speech. I understand the thought behind why adverbs scattered page to page look awful, messy, unthoughtful (often there are stronger verbs) but I think an overall avoidance of the part of speech isn't going to help a writer.

My personal advice is to note what the though process is behind the rule, and apply it where it works. Don't feel guilty about using an adverb that works.

And there's more reason than strong verbs to form a sentence one way or the next. Too much prose cutting can leave sentences feeling overtightened, stiff, voiceless, rhythmless.

I prefer to write my prose how it sounds most natural, gives a human voice to the background, then I'll cut where it's fatty. But not so much as to take the voice away or chop the natural flow from it.

So in short, adverbs are no more evil than verbs or nouns or adjectives or articles....etc....

[The Lonely One]

I see some new authors trying so hard to use a "strong" verb that they write themselves out of sounding natural.

I very, very rarely use adverbs, but some of them just sound correct.

Beat me to it. and more succinctly :)

[backslashbaby]

I see some new authors trying so hard to use a "strong" verb that they write themselves out of sounding natural.



I totally agree. And too much 'showing' can get silly and bog the pace, depending on how that's done.

Adverbs are handy in the mix, but don't be lazy with them.

[Rolling Thunder]

Every word is acceptable...until you try to get it past an agent. :)

[job]

Don't worry about adverbs till you've finished the whole first draft. Then read it out loud. If it sounds good with the adverbs in, just leave 'em be.

Trying to take all the adverbs out while you're writing is like trying to wipe down the bar while you're lifting weights.

[cwfgal]

As the others have said, adverbs should be used judiciously and wisely. Sometimes they are the best choice.

Beth

[Mumut]

Use a thesaurus for a while to see if there are better verbs than the one you are using. After a while you'll know if you need to keep on using it.

[Bluegate]

This whole thing just reminds me of a fad that has gone too far. I am not looking to be an anorexic writer, cutting all the curves out of my work. We cut pronouns, adverbs and dialog tags. What's next, those pesky nouns?

Write it the way it lives in your head. Edit it later.

[JoNightshade]

Surprised nobody has linked this yet:

http://querytracker.blogspot.com/2009/08/truly-madly-deeply-thoughts-on-adverbs.html

[Jennasis]

I use 'em...and nobody better have a problem with that!

Seriously, I write. Later, I edit. Many adverbs die, many stay. Whatever works for/helps my story.

Interestingly (snicker...), I have read no fewer than 4 "bestsellers" recently (hehehe...) all of which used adverbs judiciously (hahahah...THREE!). Oh and lots of exclamation marks.

Whatever floats yer boat.

[Wayne K]

I use them sparingly.

[Libbie]

Adverbs are part of your Writer's Toolbox. They exist for a reason. As sp said, if it works, use them.

Exactly. (See? An adverb!)

You shouldn't never use adverbs. You should only use them when they'll make the most impact or serve the narrative best.

The reason why so many people say you shouldn't use them is because many writers rely on adverbs to describe action rather than choosing more appropriate verbs. If you can find a verb that flows well with the story and also describes the action accurately, use it. If you can't, use an adverb.

Too many adverbs shows that you're not caring much about how you communicate with the reader. It's sloppy and lazy to rely on them all the time. And, as others have pointed out, overuse of adverbs is a major component of the "telling" curse (as opposed to showing, which is preferable.)

Telling is when you create a boring wall of separation between the reader and the action in your book. Think of a kid telling you about their day: "This happened, and then this happened, and then this happened." Too many adverbs can make the reader feel like they're listening to a child rattle off a story.

Showing draws the reader in more, as if they're watching the action on a movie screen or, better yet, are actually experiencing it themselves. Think of a skilled storyteller reciting a tale in front of an audience. They use their hands and their face to convey expression. They vary the pitch of their voice. They move around. They keep the audience on the edge of their seat, because the combination of their words and how they use their words is so engrossing.

"Look at that bear," Sam said quietly. He sounded scared.

"Look at that bear," Sam whispered, a sharp edge of fear in his voice.

Big difference between these two sentences. You can see for yourself which is telling and which is showing, right? The lack of adverb has a lot to do with how you feel when reading the sentences.

Many times, you can replace an adverb with action that will show the emotion or action you want to convey better than an adverb would show it.

"I wish I could see my mother again," Vera said wistfully.

"I wish I could see my mother again," Vera said. She turned the brittle pages of the photo album with care. Now and then she paused, tracing a knobby old finger over the sepia faces, smiling to herself as if she could feel the smooth, cool skin of her mother's cheek.

The first one tells of wistfulness. The second one shows wistfulness, and is more interesting to read.

But it isn't taboo to use an adverb just because it's an adverb. Adverbs have their place. Use them when you need to. When you don't need to, don't. :)

[t.c.laing]

I very, very rarely use adverbs,

:) Love your satire here - three in a row!

[Salis]

If it isn't slathered in buttery adverbs, I shan't eat it.

[James D. Macdonald]

:) Love your satire here - three in a row!

"Very" isn't being used as an adverb here. It's an intensifier.

[KTC]

i hate the bad rap that some words get here. sure...a manuscript filled with them will not be a pretty picture. But do not NOT use them. When it is needed, it works. People kill their shit dead by following all the rules.

[sleepsheep]

I am a novice myself, but the ban on adverbs baffles me. I think good prose needs adverbs, and as much as I try to heed the show-don't-tell rule, I can't help but use adverbs. Some of my favorite prose out there is replete with adverbs, so I don't really let Strunk and White ruin my fun.

Here is a good bit from the Language Log about this: http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/000469.html

Those who lard their prose with juicy, slobbering, adjectival modifiers... write stupid little books like The Elements of Style that tell you not to. The second word in Roger Angell's Foreword to the 4th edition of Strunk and White is an attributive adjective. In E. B. White's introduction to the book, the 6th word is an attributive adjective and there is another in the 4th line and so it goes on. The first two chapters of the main part of the book both have titles that begin with an attributive adjective.

And another one from the same: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001905.html

...there are 52 adjective and adverb tokens in White's 406 words. That's almost 13 percent of the total word count (the adjectives alone make up about 8 percent of the word tokens)....

[ClaudiaGray]

"Very" isn't being used as an adverb here. It's an intensifier.


It's still an adverb, though, because it's modifying another adverb.

[Searching]

Definitely, but one needs to use them succinctly, precisely and only when it's entirely required and never unnecessarily.

[blacbird]

Absolutely.

caw

[LuckyH]

I've yet to read a literary novel, a classic, that isn't bouncing with adverbs, sometimes excruciatingly so. Their overuse in modern commercial fiction is discouraged, and I don't really know how that came about, does it have something to do with lazy readers, who don't like long words and prefer text?

Can you text adverbs?

[sleepsheep]

I've yet to read a literary novel, a classic, that isn't bouncing with adverbs, sometimes excruciatingly so. Their overuse in modern commercial fiction is discouraged, and I don't really know how that came about, does it have something to do with lazy readers, who don't like long words and prefer text?

Can you text adverbs?

I think a lot of it comes from grammar instruction based on Strunk and White, who say, "write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs," and also, "omit needless words."

[Willowmound]

At what point can you ignore the adverb rule and choose strong adverbs?

When you need them.

[CaroGirl]

Never use averbs.

Or double negatives.
You shouldn't never use adverbs.

But do not NOT use them.

Or redundancy.
People kill their shit dead by following all the rules.

Sarcasm, though, is all good.

[Blue Sky]

Very funny CaroGirl! Lightening up our averb usage? It might rub off on our adverb usage as well. Sarcasm is okay, right? :) Thanks for the early morning laughs.

lucidzfl: I second the advice to try a thesaurus. When I recently broke down and bought Roget's--at Uncle Jim's repeated, general plea--I found it helped a lot with verbs. My vocabulary serves me well, so I'm familiar with most verbs I find. The thesaurus shows many cross-connections that act as catalysts. Know what I mean? Abundant synchronistic "finds" make it fun.

What a treat. Glad I tried it after all these years. But of course, that's just my experience.

[LuckyH]

I think a lot of it comes from grammar instruction based on Strunk and White, who say, "write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs," and also, "omit needless words."
I've read those grammar 'instructions', and, in context, they make sense, depending on what you're writing.

Offhand, I can only think of Maeve Binchy, the Irish writer, as an example of someone who blatantly ignores those 'rules', unless I go back further, when everybody did.

How can you describe something like a simple hedgerow, relevant to your story, by following the rules?

It would at least have to be a luxurious green in spring, or a withered brown in winter, providing a last home for the animals driven from the ploughed fields by unthinking farmers, lazily careering along on their gigantic tractors without a single thought for their surroundings.

Did someone say Cut?

[sleepsheep]

How can you describe something like a simple hedgerow, relevant to your story, by following the rules?


In 1886 Elizabeth Akers Allen wrote a poem about adjectives:

Where would the force of language be
Without the adjective?
How could the critic wing his shaft?
How could the poet live?

How could the novelist portray
The creatures of his brain,
The beauty of his heroine,
The transport of his swain?

No more his tide of eloquence
The orator could pour,
No more the man of science fill
His treasuries of lore.

The lover's tongue could never tell
His passion and despair;
Deprived of its superlatives
Who would for flattery care?

Where would the sting of satire be?
The edge and point of wit?
How could the stab of censure wound,
The dart of sarcasm hit?

Biographers would cease to prowl,
Historians drop the pen,
Paralysis would chill and numb
The tongues and minds of men,---

The press would lose its voice of might,
The pulpit all its power,
The sage could not describe a star,
The botanist a flower,---

So rarely is a period penned,
A line or sentence made,
Or thought set down, O adjective,
Which does not claim thy aid!

Yet I for once defy thy might,
For mark me, as I live,
No stanza of the nine here writ
Contains an adjective!

;)

[LuckyH]

I'm humbled and stand foolishly
By my hedgerow
Wondering how such a lady
So long ago
Knew more than me.

[CaroGirl]

In 1886 Elizabeth Akers Allen wrote a poem about adjectives:
Ha! I was looking for adjectives in the poem while I read and guessed the punchline before I got there. Thanks for posting!

[Charlie Horse]

It's still an adverb, though, because it's modifying another adverb.

Adverbs having adverbs is like babies making babies. Usually not the best choice one can make in life, but in some instances the end result is still beautiful.

My original though on this is adverbs are like any other vice, perfectly acceptable when used in moderation.

[Red Sharpie]

I love using adverbs to give my writing a fantastically humorous tone when I'm looking for one. For some reason, using them this way is often overlooked in the adverb debate.

The only rule, imo, is that for every adverb you should ask yourself, "Why is it here?" If it's because you're too lazy to write a way to show instead of tell, or you're trying to unnaturally lead the reader to a certain conclusion, cut it. But like the others said, don't worry about it while you're writing; wait until the editing stage.

[Libbie]

All this talk about attributive adjectives and intensifiers and double negatives makes me glad I don't have a college education.

[maestrowork]

"Dead" is a good adverb; "forever" is another one: I'm dead set against banning adverbs forever.

I also like adverbs that modify adjectives, etc. "It's sadly inappropriate to comment on that." Such constructs create certain effects: irony, sarcasm, etc. etc. that is precise, succinct and effective.


"Adverbs" are summarization in general. The trick is to know when to use them to effect, to describe/summarize something without going on and on about anything. Sometimes we must succinctly describe something and move on. Adverbs or adjectives do the work beautifully.

[blacbird]

I've yet to read a literary novel, a classic, that isn't bouncing with adverbs, sometimes excruciatingly so.

Then either:

A) You're reading only old classics, written during a time when less emphasis was placed on brevity and spareness in narrative prose,

or

B) you're reading the wrong stuff.

From a quick grab at novels in my library usually considered "literary", these openings:

He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. In the first forty days a boy had been with him. But after forty days without a fish the boy's parents had told him that the old man was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky, and the boy had gone at their orders in another boat which caught three good fish the first week. (Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea); I see two adverbs, used precisely and well.

In the spring of that year an epidemic of rabies broke out in Ether County, Georgia. The disease was carried principally by foxes and was reported first by farmers, who, in the months of April and May, shot more than seventy of the animals and turned them in to the county health officer in Cotton Point. (Pete Dexter, Paris Trout); one adverb.

On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the Bishop was coming on. He'd dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit. (Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Chronicle of a Death Foretold); one adverb.

The candleflame and the image of the candleflame caught in the pierglass twisted and righted when he entered the hall and again when he shut the door. He took off his hat and came slowly forward. The floorboards creaked under his boots. (Cormac McCarthy, All the Pretty Horses); one adverb.

caw

[Salis]

Strunk & White's is the one book I could get behind burning wherever it is found.

[The Lonely One]

Strunk & White's is the one book I could get behind burning wherever it is found.

It's interesting, because I've never heard mediocre reviews of this book. Never, "It's alright. Offers some insight into writing but I don't use it religiously."

It's either a fanatical following or something along the lines of "this outdated garbage is full of erroneous advice. Destroy it."

I've never read it myself, but I've heard both good and pretty bad things about it. Not to derail. I just wonder how their advice on adverbial use applies to the spectrum of writing.

[backslashbaby]

It's interesting, because I've never heard mediocre reviews of this book. Never, "It's alright. Offers some insight into writing but I don't use it religiously."

It's either a fanatical following or something along the lines of "this outdated garbage is full of erroneous advice. Destroy it."

I've never read it myself, but I've heard both good and pretty bad things about it. Not to derail. I just wonder how their advice on adverbial use applies to the spectrum of writing.

I wasn't under the impression that it was for fiction. Of course, the grammar is. I think the avoidance of adverbs is more creatively inspired, if you will. There are better ways to tell a story, in most cases, is the motivation, imho.

[Salis]

It's interesting, because I've never heard mediocre reviews of this book. Never, "It's alright. Offers some insight into writing but I don't use it religiously."

It's either a fanatical following or something along the lines of "this outdated garbage is full of erroneous advice. Destroy it."

I've never read it myself, but I've heard both good and pretty bad things about it. Not to derail. I just wonder how their advice on adverbial use applies to the spectrum of writing.

To be fair, if that was most people's reaction to it, I'd be totally fine with it. It's the way people list it as an essential book to have as a writer that makes me want to burn it up. It's a very bad book (in my humble opinion) to use as a bible.

[sleepsheep]

To be fair, if that was most people's reaction to it, I'd be totally fine with it. It's the way people list it as an essential book to have as a writer that makes me want to burn it up. It's a very bad book (in my humble opinion) to use as a bible.

I am with Salis on this one. When people use it as a bible of proper usage, it becomes a bit absurd. That's why I love the guys at Language Log so much - they bash Strunk and White constantly and intelligently.

Here's their analysis of what Strunk and White would've said about the US Declaration of Independence:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003318.html

According to the principles enunciated by Strunk and White , the Declaration of Independence is an awful piece of writing. It is riddled with adjectives and adverbs, according to Strunk and White, and other purveyors of stupid advice, the nemesis of good writing.

The point being that linguistic laws are not absolute, and you can't follow them blindly, just because a little book says so (even though it hardly follows its own advice).

[blacbird]

I am with Salis on this one. When people use it as a bible of proper usage, it becomes a bit absurd. That's why I love the guys at Language Log so much - they bash Strunk and White constantly and intelligently.

Here's their analysis of what Strunk and White would've said about the US Declaration of Independence:

Which is, of course, irrelevant. The Dec was written (with quill pen, no less) in 1776. S&W first saw print (typeset) nearly a century-and-a-half later, in 1918. Literary styles had evolved greatly during that time, and when S&W wrote their guide, writers were looking hard at brevity and efficiency as high virtues in prose style. They were in no way trying to critique works of past centuries.

But, hey, if you want to write your novel in Jefferfonian profe ftyle, ain't nobody ftopping you. Let uf know how it turnf out.

caw

[LuckyH]

Then either:

A) You're reading only old classics, written during a time when less emphasis was placed on brevity and spareness in narrative prose,

or

B) you're reading the wrong stuff.

From a quick grab at novels in my library usually considered "literary", these openings:

He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. In the first forty days a boy had been with him. But after forty days without a fish the boy's parents had told him that the old man was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky, and the boy had gone at their orders in another boat which caught three good fish the first week. (Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea); I see two adverbs, used precisely and well.

In the spring of that year an epidemic of rabies broke out in Ether County, Georgia. The disease was carried principally by foxes and was reported first by farmers, who, in the months of April and May, shot more than seventy of the animals and turned them in to the county health officer in Cotton Point. (Pete Dexter, Paris Trout); one adverb.

On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the Bishop was coming on. He'd dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit. (Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Chronicle of a Death Foretold); one adverb.

The candleflame and the image of the candleflame caught in the pierglass twisted and righted when he entered the hall and again when he shut the door. He took off his hat and came slowly forward. The floorboards creaked under his boots. (Cormac McCarthy, All the Pretty Horses); one adverb.

caw
I've read all of those, thank you for reminding me of past pleasures.

Aren't you agreeing with me? One adverb per paragraph, that's exactly what I was saying?

Present writing is sparse, littered with rules that inhibit literary expression, reducing writing to the level of business letters or texts, more suitable for ebooks that will take over our reading habits.

On a six-inch, flickering screen, does beauty of language matter anymore?

[sleepsheep]

Which is, of course, irrelevant. The Dec was written (with quill pen, no less) in 1776. S&W first saw print (typeset) nearly a century-and-a-half later, in 1918. Literary styles had evolved greatly during that time, and when S&W wrote their guide, writers were looking hard at brevity and efficiency as high virtues in prose style. They were in no way trying to critique works of past centuries.

But, hey, if you want to write your novel in Jefferfonian profe ftyle, ain't nobody ftopping you. Let uf know how it turnf out.

caw

I don't think it's irrelevant. Good prose should transcend typesetting. I think the point is that blindly applying S&W's rules is silly. Do you disagree? After all, "all men are created equal...", "they are endowed by their Creator...", that's all passive voice, a big no-no. But, it works, it's alright.

Furthermore, they were not trying to critique works of future or contemporary authors either. They were trying to set up rules for writing, and since English grammar hasn't changed too drastically in 200 years, it's fair to see how older prose stands up to their rules.

And, as I pointed out in my previous post on this thread, their own writing doesn't stand up to their exacting rules either.

[blacbird]

Aren't you agreeing with me? One adverb per paragraph, that's exactly what I was saying?

One adverb per paragraph in literary fiction is "bouncing with adverbs", "excruciatingly so"? But, now you've issued a bit of a challenge. When I get home I'm going to grab some random"genre" novels I have, and post the same exercise here.

Meantime, at the core of S&W is the "Omit needless words" rule, Rule 17:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

I suspect that S&W would find the words in the Declaration of Independence follow this dictum quite well.

caw

[LuckyH]

One adverb per paragraph in literary fiction is "bouncing with adverbs", "excruciatingly so"? But, now you've issued a bit of a challenge. When I get home I'm going to grab some random"genre" novels I have, and post the same exercise here.

Meantime, at the core of S&W is the "Omit needless words" rule, Rule 17:



I suspect that S&W would find the words in the Declaration of Independence follow this dictum quite well.

caw
Are you trying to frighten me? "When you get home''?

My home is full of books, I fill it up regularly, mostly from Amazon, or anywhere else where books are for sale.

I'm only joking, I'm looking forward to your posting, although if you're in the US I may be asleep. How about posting something from 'lesser' authors like Grisham? And don't bother with King, he uses adverbs like confetti.

[Dawnstorm]

A thread about Strunk & White (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147201) which contains my take on the booklet. As far as I can remember, the original 1918 booklet doesn't have the "write with nouns and verbs" rule. It's, IIRC, White's addition. The relevant rule has little text to it, and what there is praises adjectives and adverbs when they work. *Shrug*

Adverbosity is a matter of style: Will Self's The Book of Dave has few of them. Julian Barnes' Arthur and George has more. Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children is an adverb-extravaganza (you'll find concoctions of the type "tooth-achingly", though maybe not that exact one).

The book I'm reading right now: Iris Murdoch, The Sea, The Sea. I opened a random page and found this sentence:

Niblets is a small square bungalow built of a red brick which has been partly and mercifully whitewashed.

Adverbs, adjectives, passive voice, a defining relative clause with "which"...

If you go by popular quibbles there are no good books.

[MGraybosch]

For my part, I try to avoid the use of adverbs and passive voice, but there are rare occasions where both are not only useful, but necessary. The key is knowing when to use them, and how much. Is anybody here familiar with Cherryh's Law (formulated by sf author C.J. Cherryh): "Never follow a rule off a cliff."

[djf881]

Wow. I'd been telling myself throughout my revision process that the MS read clean and sounded organic and conversational.

You guys finally convinced me to do the control-F of "ly", and, when I was really looking for unnecessary adverbs, I found a bunch that could come out. And I just sent the damn book out to an agent.

[maestrowork]

Before we banish something like adverbs or set up some kind of guidelines of dos and don'ts, we need to understand the reasoning behind these things. Why are "adverbs" considered "bad" and when to use them. The fact is, adverbs are not bad, but how the writers use them (overtly summarization, lazy writing, tell instead of show, etc.) is the culprit, not the adverbs themselves. Once we understand these pitfalls, we can use the tools more adequately.

[blacbird]

Are you trying to frighten me? "When you get home''?

I meant to say "When I get home and tell Mom."

And it's almost certain you'll be asleep then. I live about as far west as it gets, in Alaska.

caw

[Xelebes]

But, hey, if you want to write your novel in Jefferfonian profe ftyle, ain't nobody ftopping you. Let uf know how it turnf out.

caw

There iƒ a keyƒtroke for that, you know.

Edit - but it does look ugly in Arial.

[lauraannwilliams]

I think a lot of the advice about adverbs is simply because they are so easy to over use, or use badly. Sometimes it's easier to advise "do not use" or at least "use less" than to teach proper usage.

Plus, tastes vary - too flowery for one person reads as lovely to another.

[Brutal Mustang]

They are still going to be 'telling' instead of 'showing', but sometimes that's the best for what you are trying to do. It depends on why you chose them, imho.

Yep. Now, not to derail or anything, but am I the only one who likes a pinch of "telling" every now in then? I mean, lately it feels like people are going overboard with the whole "show, not tell" thing. I'm growing slightly weary of being plopped into the middle of a remote scene, book after book, having to figure out where the hell I am. Especially in sci fi and fantasy. It seems like short, breezy "telling" passages scattered here and there would just make some books more enjoyable.

[Salis]

Yep. Now, not to derail or anything, but am I the only one who likes a pinch of "telling" every now in then? I mean, lately it feels like people are going overboard with the whole "show, not tell" thing. I'm growing slightly weary of being plopped into the middle of a remote scene, book after book, having to figure out where the hell I am. Especially in sci fi and fantasy. It seems like short, breezy "telling" passages scattered here and there would just make some books more enjoyable.

Welcome to why rules suck. :D

[AMCrenshaw]

Any such thing as a good adverb?


The first response is the best one and is universal to writing. Check out "Spunk and Bite" on amazon for some encouragement about breaking the rules.


AMC

[mscelina]

Is there any such thing as a good adverb?

Certainly. If you use them judiciously and sparingly.

[Birol]

Is there any such thing as a good adverb?

Certainly. If you use them judiciously and sparingly.

:roll:

[Salis]

It's funny how people keep doing that without (I think) noticing.

[LuckyH]

A thread about Strunk & White (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147201) which contains my take on the booklet. As far as I can remember, the original 1918 booklet doesn't have the "write with nouns and verbs" rule. It's, IIRC, White's addition. The relevant rule has little text to it, and what there is praises adjectives and adverbs when they work. *Shrug*

Adverbosity is a matter of style: Will Self's The Book of Dave has few of them. Julian Barnes' Arthur and George has more. Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children is an adverb-extravaganza (you'll find concoctions of the type "tooth-achingly", though maybe not that exact one).

The book I'm reading right now: Iris Murdoch, The Sea, The Sea. I opened a random page and found this sentence:



Adverbs, adjectives, passive voice, a defining relative clause with "which"...

If you go by popular quibbles there are no good books.

Why couldn't I have thought of Self, Barnes, Rushdie and Murdoch? Especially Rushdie, if you took adverbs out of his writing, there would be nothing left. It's always sad to hear of Murdoch and now . . .here I go again, the famous English author also suffering from Alzheimers?

I wonder if it's only agents and publishers who seem to object to flowery writing, the reading public don't seem to mind, they send those books straight to the top of the bestsellers lists.

Personally, I've studied the rules and sometimes wish I hadn't.

[Stijn Hommes]

Adverbs are part of your Writer's Toolbox. They exist for a reason. As sp said, if it works, use them. This is the most intelligent answer your gonna get. Also the right one.

[sleepsheep]

It's funny how people keep doing that without (I think) noticing.

And here I thought everyone was just being pun-ny. :)

[Charlie Horse]

This is silly, silly, silly.

The only people truly annoyed by adverbs are those good folks who write books on how to write and those who take said books literally. I'd bet every last penny I have that the average reader pays no more attention to adverbs than they do to the chirping of a bird or a cloud in the sky.

[Dawnstorm]

I wonder if it's only agents and publishers who seem to object to flowery writing, the reading public don't seem to mind, they send those books straight to the top of the bestsellers lists.

Personally, I've studied the rules and sometimes wish I hadn't.

If they'd all disappear overnight I wouldn't shed a tear. It's not agents and publishers (though they do sometimes pay lipservice) that profit most from the rules; it's creative writing courses and how-to books. I find that rule-inspired criticism often misses the point of a text. For a while, rule-bashing was a hobby of mine, but it's pointless, really, and also a bit impolite. I still get carried away by the occasional rant, but you can't really criticise the rules, as you always run up against impenetrable defenses: "not rules, but guidelines", "you must know the rules to break them"...

[blacbird]

Rushdie, if you took adverbs out of his writing, there would be nothing left.

Well, there's about the best recommendation for getting rid of adverbs I've ever seen.

caw

[Searching]

The words nigger or cracker, are not in themselves racist. They are just constructions - meaningless without the constructees, only racist when used in a certain context. Just like an adverb in not in itself bad. It's all about context.

I remember reading "On Writing", and some of the advice deals with adverbs. King is quite black and white about them, denouncing them as bad. But then, when he shows us the revision for the 1408 short story, he explains after he uses an adverb, that he thinks it fits nicely, or something along those lines.

So it all depends. I think it's best to look at the verb and not the adverb. If the verb is a 'weak' verb, then we should try to pick a better verb, instead of tacking on an adverb. But, often thinking about the strongest verb distracts from the flow of writing, so perhaps it's best to come back to them after one has finished.

[Willowmound]

The words nigger or cracker, are not in themselves racist. They are just constructions - meaningless without the constructees, only racist when used in a certain context.

Use "nigger" in a context where it is not racist. Come on.

[Salis]

Use "nigger" in a context where it is not racist. Come on.

I am a nigger.

[Elegy]

Am I the only one who has the feeling that writing is just like any other art, in that it's all about the opinion of the writer, the opinions of the viewers, and none of them will ever agree simultaneously so we should just do what works for us and hope to appeal to people who think similarly?

I hope I'm not the only one, because I strongly suspect I'm correct, here.

[Willowmound]

I am a nigger.

You win.

[motormind]

Sentences need to flow. They have to sound right. If that takes adjectives, use them.

[Chuck Jones]

This is silly, silly, silly.

The only people truly annoyed by adverbs are those good folks who write books on how to write and those who take said books literally. I'd bet every last penny I have that the average reader pays no more attention to adverbs than they do to the chirping of a bird or a cloud in the sky.


This. Exactly.

If you listen to every idiotic rule about how to impress agents, publishers, how to write a book that sells... what you are really going to be left with is a sterile, soulless manuscript that's a waste of your time and everyone else's.

[Willowmound]

This is silly, silly, silly.

The only people truly annoyed by adverbs are those good folks who write books on how to write and those who take said books literally. I'd bet every last penny I have that the average reader pays no more attention to adverbs than they do to the chirping of a bird or a cloud in the sky.

Nor of course do they pay attention to plot composition, pacing, character arcs or sentence structure. That doesn't necessarily mean the writer shouldn't.

[Priene]

Use "nigger" in a context where it is not racist. Come on.

You just did.

[Willowmound]

You win too.

[The Lonely One]

Nor of course do they pay attention to plot composition, pacing, character arcs or sentence structure. That doesn't necessarily mean the writer shouldn't.

They're not paying attention but veteran readers notice the absence of these things, I would bet.

That's why, like everything else, a writer aught use adverbs where they fit best and scrap them where they hinder the reader's image from being as strong as it can be.

And yes sterility can be an issue, however, I think the very best way to solve this is to read writers who write a style you find compelling, then do that.

[Kisatchie]

A conversation I overheard in the back of my mind:

"There's a rule: 'Never use adverbs.'"

"Uh, 'never' is an adverb."

"Rats."

[Strange Days]

See no reason at all why adverbs are to be omitted. They help graphic "descriptivness" of the story... Just do not overpower it with them...

[Strange Days]

Nor of course do they pay attention to plot composition, pacing, character arcs or sentence structure. That doesn't necessarily mean the writer shouldn't.

The ONLY three things that annoy me as a reader are: 1). repetition of the same uncommon noun/name/verb/adjective/adverb within three sentenses, 2). repetiton of the same structure in two sentenses in a row and 3). boring plot . Don't give a damn about adverbs. In fact- they assist me with proper visualization of the actions and events and help better understand the thoughts...

[Jcomp]

He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. In the first forty days a boy had been with him. But after forty days without a fish the boy's parents had told him that the old man was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky, and the boy had gone at their orders in another boat which caught three good fish the first week. (Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea); I see two adverbs, used precisely and well.

"Alone" here is used as an adverb as well, describing how he fished.


In the spring of that year an epidemic of rabies broke out in Ether County, Georgia. The disease was carried principally by foxes and was reported first by farmers, who, in the months of April and May, shot more than seventy of the animals and turned them in to the county health officer in Cotton Point. (Pete Dexter, Paris Trout); one adverb.

"First" is an adverb here as well. We also get two instances of passive phrasing the first half of the second sentence, another big "no-no" by all accounts.


On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the Bishop was coming on. He'd dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit. (Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Chronicle of a Death Foretold); one adverb.

Interesting workaround here, the "gentle" is used as an adjective to describe the drizzle, but a "gentle drizzle" certainly couldn't fall in any manner save "gently" could it? In that light it opens this entire can of worms I don't even want to get into, but you see what I mean...

A common mistake is thinking that adverbs all end in "-ly" and, of course, in thinking that they have to be altogether avoided or sparingly. Truth is, like anything else, they should be used when appropriate and avoided when inappropriate. People should look at what they've written and figure out if their sentences can be improved by reworking them. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

[ellisnation]

I spent my entire first book avoiding adverbs. At times, it was a major struggle and made me grumpy. So...for my 2nd book I wrote them in and let my writers group tell me which ones could go. It made life tons easier, and I was in a much better mood :)

[MGraybosch]

Use "nigger" in a context where it is not racist. Come on.

I never got around to reading Joseph Conrad's The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'.

[motormind]

I never got around to reading Joseph Conrad's The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'.

I'm niggardly about spending my time as well.

[t.c.laing]

"Very" isn't being used as an adverb here. It's an intensifier.


Oh well, I've been wrong before :) Still...got a chuckle out of it.

[Maxinquaye]

My english teachers taught me: "A text is also a rythm, a sort of song, that has its own beat and rhyme". It's stuck with me. Adverbs are fine if they add to the beat of the text, i think.

Go and read a The Lottery by Shirley Jackson. It's a classic, but it's full of rythm and song, and it has lots of adverbs in it.

Addition:
You should always TELL your story. And by that I mean, you should read it loud. Then you'll find the rythm and the beat, and more importantly you'll find where the text jars and coughs.

[Bartholomew]

This is silly, silly, silly.

The only people truly annoyed by adverbs are those good folks who write books on how to write and those who take said books literally. I'd bet every last penny I have that the average reader pays no more attention to adverbs than they do to the chirping of a bird or a cloud in the sky.

I like that. I wonder if it's true.

[benbradley]

Indubitably.

[blacbird]

But I've ended up in a position where sometimes I feel like the adverbs are stronger than any verbs.

Meaningless. An adverb is not a verb, can never substitute for a verb, and is therefore never "stronger" than a verb.

Adverbs have their own purpose in writing, and should be used only for that purpose. The problem arises when adverbs are used where they are not well-suited. And especially when over-used, which is one of the principal sins of first drafts and by inexperienced writers.

Only you can answer the question of whether your adverb use is appropriate, or not.

caw

[Rufus Coppertop]

They are still going to be 'telling' instead of 'showing', but sometimes that's the best for what you are trying to do. It depends on why you chose them, imho.

:hooray: Verily I concur enthusiastically with your skillfully expressed truth.

[Stijn Hommes]

The "rules" you read about are usually worded to strongly. In the right situation an adverb is an invaluable tool in your arsenal. The key is not to overuse them.

[bearilou]

But, hey, if you want to write your novel in Jefferfonian profe ftyle, ain't nobody ftopping you. Let uf know how it turnf out.

caw


I laughed so hard, I scared my dog.

[ladyinpink]

My take on adverbs is this: Don't over use them. If you have 3 adverbs in a chapter, fine. don't have 33 though. I don't think ALL telling is bad. Sometimes it takes longer to show something than tell it, and if its a necessary detail but not as important as what else is going on in the scene, then less is more. Sometimes an adverb can convey the idea for you faster. Use adverbs, but don't abuse them. I crit for people often and they will tell you I am one of the most annoying people when it comes to adverbs because 95% of the time I think they don't work - but even I wouldn't say NEVER use them. I do believe they have their place, it's just not a very big place. It's like a hut more than a ranch or a mansion.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Read any classic of literature. Guess what the Giants weren't afraid to use?

Adverbs.

[ladyinpink]

Yes, many published works have adverbs. Also, many agents and editors are looking for writing that ISN'T over run with adverbs. So what do we do? Do we do what was once done, or do we work towards what the market is currently looking for?

A poorly written book can be published and even become a best seller. Does that mean we should try to mimic poor writing?

[Maxinquaye]

Tbh, I have never worked "toward what the market is currently is looking for". That may mean I never get published, of course. Of course. That's always a risk.

I work toward what interests me for now, and then I hope the market and my interest will overlap.

I don't think you can work any other way. And, ten years ago, the market was not looking for underage british wizards. :)

[ladyinpink]

well, even if you did work towards what the market is looking for, that doesn't mean you will get published. thats a reality we all face.

For me, I write the story I want to write. I want to share it will others, I feel its a story that people would love to read. So I use writing techniques that show strong writing in hopes it will increase the chances of publication so that others may one day get to read the story I wrote as well.

I find it hard to understand your analogy. Good writing becoming more demanded in the market (because there are more writers and they are trying to have higher standards in quality) is not something I see closely related to story plots. Of course underage british wizards worked when the market wasn't looking for it. Because I know what the market WAS looking for. Something new. In your example, it was still something the market wanted. When it comes to plot, the market doesn't know what they are looking for until they see it. If they did, there would posts all over the internet of "send us a story with this plot". The writers are the ones who are supposed to come up with new ideas. This is completely off subject from the mechanics of writing though.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Yes, many published works have adverbs. Also, many agents and editors are looking for writing that ISN'T over run with adverbs. So what do we do? Do we do what was once done, or do we work towards what the market is currently looking for?

A poorly written book can be published and even become a best seller. Does that mean we should try to mimic poor writing?

Um. If agents and editors are actively looking for non-adverbly writing, they seem to be failing, because I find adverbs in EVERYTHING I read.

(and having adverbs doesn't automatically make something poorly written)

[ladyinpink]

So do I Shadow_Ferret. And I never said "non-adverbly" either. They do look for writing that is not overdone with adverbs - though I see that in many newer best sellers as well. However, as a writer I'm sure you read a lot of blogs on publishing as well as I do, so you are aware that they are looking for this, even if they aren't finding it in conjunction with a good story often. I find the story is often more important than the writing. But a well written good story is still better than a poorly written good story, and I think that is what the Agents and Publishers blogs and articles are trying to say. Personally, I think what they are trying to say makes sense, so I put the effort into my writing to show more than tell. Often, adverbs stand in the way of showing, however, I don't think all adverbs are bad. I just see the :wow: difference when an adverb is replaced by showing the story, and so I continue to lean towards that. As a reader, I enjoy many stories that overuse adverbs.

(and you are right - having an abundance of overused adverbs (which is what im talking about - not having adverbs in general) does not automatically make poor writing, however, often the same attitude towards adverbs is applied to many other things. (dull openings; overuse of words such as just, that, down, over, etc; excessive passive voice; purple prose; too much description and back story; weak action words, such as went... went how? the paper went out the window, or it flew out the window, or it drifted out the window?) Words have impact. Words can effect emotion. I choose not to pass up those opportunities by dumping lazy adverbs into my writing instead. Emotion is an important element in writing. I'm not saying adverbs=poor writing, but that the attitude of "well this is poorly written and is still published" or "this book did this wrong and is still published so it doesn't matter if I do that too" is not a winning argument for me.)

note: when i say lazy adverbs i am not referring to all adverbs as lazy i am referring to the adverbs that are lazy. the ones that are put in place when showing is better option, but it's easier to use the -ly word.

[ChaosTitan]

The thread woke up for another round?

Then let us review:

If it works, you can use them.

Adverbs are part of your Writer's Toolbox. They exist for a reason. As sp said, if it works, use them.

[ladyinpink]

This was a great topic. Inspired a blog post out of me, and that's hard to do. I agree, use them when they are the right thing to use.

As far as publishing, Publishers and Agents are, I believe, too busy to waste time telling us about these things if it's not really important to them. They may not be getting what they are looking for (and hence publishing lots of books with lots of adverbs) but I don't believe they are lying to us about what they are looking for. Of course, when I say this, I am not referring solely to adverbs but poor writing as a whole. Adverbs, sometimes, when overused, can be a *part* of that. I'm no extremist, I swear, but I got a little fire in me for sure. *sweet smile*

[Shadow_Ferret]

However, as a writer I'm sure you read a lot of blogs on publishing as well as I do...

Um. No. I don't read any publishing blogs.

[ladyinpink]

Oh, alright! Bad assumption on my part. I find them very interesting and informative. Many of the blogs I follow were recommended to me by fellow writers, and it seems many writers who seek publication read a lot on the subject through articles and blogs and other resources. If you read agent's blogs, they offer a lot as well, and often give insight towards publishing as well. That might not be something you are interested in though. There are a ton of wonderful writers out there who write purely for the pleasure of it. I write because I love it, but I will seek publication as well.

[ChaosTitan]

They may not be getting what they are looking for (and hence publishing lots of books with lots of adverbs)

If an agent was truly concerned about a book's above-average use of adverbs (or any other part of the English language), they would make an issue of it with the author. If an editor was truly concerned, they would wield their Blue Pencil of Doom.

Honestly, I think writers tend to over-analyze things too much. Why am I getting rejected? Too many adverbs in Chapter Four! Why did my query get rejected? I put the word count at the top of the letter instead of the bottom!

There's no magic formula. Not everyone has a publishable story in them, and the best we can all do is write the very best story we are capable of and never stop trying to improve. And improving means knowing the Tools in the Writer's Toolbox, and knowing how they are used.

[ladyinpink]

If an agent was truly concerned about a book's above-average use of adverbs (or any other part of the English language), they would make an issue of it with the author. If an editor was truly concerned, they would wield their Blue Pencil of Doom.

Honestly, I think writers tend to over-analyze things too much. Why am I getting rejected? Too many adverbs in Chapter Four! Why did my query get rejected? I put the word count at the top of the letter instead of the bottom!

There's no magic formula. Not everyone has a publishable story in them, and the best we can all do is write the very best story we are capable of and never stop trying to improve. And improving means knowing the Tools in the Writer's Toolbox, and knowing how they are used.


I agree some people over-analyze things. I certainly would not think of rejections as being caused by too many adverbs in one chapter or word count in the wrong place. I have read enough to know better than that :)

The second half of your comment is extremely well said. Which is why I say what I do. Write the very best story possible - don't write it any less wonderful than you can just because other books of that quality were published. Don't fall into the comparison trap. :)

[Shadow_Ferret]

Oh, alright! Bad assumption on my part. I find them very interesting and informative. Many of the blogs I follow were recommended to me by fellow writers, and it seems many writers who seek publication read a lot on the subject through articles and blogs and other resources. If you read agent's blogs, they offer a lot as well, and often give insight towards publishing as well. That might not be something you are interested in though. There are a ton of wonderful writers out there who write purely for the pleasure of it. I write because I love it, but I will seek publication as well.

I write for publication. But I don't read blogs by publishers, editors, and only rarely by agents. I'm not sure what insights I need into publishing except that I need to write the best story I can and then write the best query to introduce it to an agent.

Beyond that, I don't care about trends, or opinions, or whatever these blogs might be about. That's what this board is for. Its my filter. I figure if something earthshaking is happening in the publishing world, it'll be reported here.

Personally, I just don't have the time to read all those blogs and still have time to write.

[ladyinpink]

That's understandable. I realize my thirst for knowledge is above average. I also have a lot of free time since I'm a SAHM. I can read articles and write and offer critiques in between changing diapers, cleaning, cooking meals, PTA duties, soccer practice, and dealing with my oldest child's special needs.

To me, learning about writing and the writing world has been very helpful to my writing itself. We all learn and write in different ways :) so for me, I don't see learning about good writing mechanics as a trend. I see it as imperative to developing my writing skills. For those reasons, insight on writing is valuable to me. I love to get insight from various sources - readers, friends, other writers, publishers, editors, agents, English teachers, the back of cereal boxes. I admit, I am consumed by writing. I breathe it. I cant get enough of anything related to it.

[Vomaxx]

Poor Strunck and White! How much abuse they are being subjected to!
But the "little book" says, on p. 71, right after the much-denounced "write with nouns and verbs..." this: "This is not to disparage adjectives and adverbs; they are indispensable parts of speech. Occasionally they surprise us with their power..." and then gives an example of this power.

It is a good little book. I wonder if those who so vehemently disparage it have actually read it attentively.

[ladyinpink]

Well put! I totally agree that there are clearly times where an adverb is the better word choice :)

[Dawnstorm]

But the "little book" says, on p. 71, right after the much-denounced "write with nouns and verbs..." this: "This is not to disparage adjectives and adverbs; they are indispensable parts of speech. Occasionally they surprise us with their power..." and then gives an example of this power.

Yes, I've read that. White (that's a White-addition) gives you a rule, and instead of explaining what he means with it, he tells you when it doesn't apply. Except that he doesn't explain either what makes the adjective/adverb usage good. It's one of the weakest sections in a book I don't think of much in the first place.

I wonder if those who so vehemently disparage it have actually read it attentively.

Oh, yes. Don't make me demonstrate. Please...

[folkchick]

I like adverbs, they taste like chocolate.

[folkchick]

To be serious--I want to say how grateful I am (many of us are) to all the people on this board. At first when I hear some mistake that I am making being mentioned, I think, AHHHHHHHH! And then I take a breathe and get back to work; fixing what needs to be fixed. Thank you!

[folkchick]

Okay, and now I have to backtrack. I went through my manuscript and found it was bloated with adverbs. At first I was busy trying to correct any that I could, then I stopped and thought, "This is how I write. I'll be a better writer someday, but this is how I express myself now." I think it would be foolish to go and change everything at this point. My book's genre is YA, in the first person. She's gonna have some adverbs--teens LOVE adverbs. So . . . I stand with my original stance and that is: I like adverbs, they taste like chocolate. To hell with perfection!!!!

[edwilson]

I'm really happy I clicked on this topic. It's so supportive. I like most here have heard the adverb rule and was paranoid I would have so many in my manuscript, but just as Libbie and the Lonely Reader explained so wonderfully is that ultimately it's your choice when you think the situation calls for it.

I also hate feeling like I must follow strict rules...it's nice to read that writer's support our right to make our own choices about how we choose to write.

[Subcreator]

If I catch myself using an adverb what I do is ask myself two questions. "Am I using this word out of laziness? Is there a better way to express things here?" If the answer is yes I change it. If the answer is no I leave it.

[Lady Ice]

So as I've been writing, I obviously have done my best to avoid adverbs. I think as a rookie writer who's learning to craft a story, its right to ignore them.

But I've ended up in a position where sometimes I feel like the adverbs are stronger than any verbs.

My recent examples:
Wistfully
Emphatically.

Perhaps I don't have a good enough vocabulary, but the desire for someone to look wistfully at someone, (or cast a wistful glance) or shake their head emphatically seems important.

At what point can you ignore the adverb rule and choose strong adverbs?

Good adverbs are fine, as long as you don't overuse certain ones. 'Wistfully' is a particularly emotive verb; the reader can mentally picture the actions one might do for wistfully. It's a good shortcut.

You can use adverbs:
- When the words are said in a way that is contrary to expectation:
' I love you' he said unconvincingly.

- To establish character (characters may speak 'lustily' and 'lecherously' or 'timidly' and 'gently')

- To eliminate ambiguity

People are not so keen on adverbs sometimes because for starters it's 'telling', a shortcut to exploring the emotions, and so it is sometimes unconvincingly attatched onto the end of a sentence, and it indicates that your dialogue isn't up to scratch- that it doesn't have the emotive power it needs to work.

As long as the adverb is used convincingly, it's fine.

[The Lonely One]

If I catch myself using an adverb what I do is ask myself two questions. "Am I using this word out of laziness? Is there a better way to express things here?" If the answer is yes I change it. If the answer is no I leave it.

If I catch myself using words, I ask myself "are these words doing their job? Is there a better way to express this?" etc.

I think your line of thinking is right--question it, don't cut it blindly--but my point is perhaps to question everything as passionately.

[maestrowork]

I've said it and I'll say it again: there's no such thing as "bad adverbs."

Just adverbs used badly.

[Subcreator]

If I catch myself using words, I ask myself "are these words doing their job? Is there a better way to express this?" etc.

I think your line of thinking is right--question it, don't cut it blindly--but my point is perhaps to question everything as passionately.

Yes, I do. I think the reason people attack adverbs so much is because they are such an easy trap to fall into. Adverbs are like the easy way out with description. Every literary tool serves a purpose but some seem to go wrong more readily than others. And for me personally, description is one of my weaknesses so I find myself having to watch myself closer there. :)

[blacbird]

' I love you' he said unconvincingly.

'I love you,' he lied.

caw

[ladyinpink]

'I love you,' he lied.

caw

*nods* there are many ways to avoid "unconvincingly" this is a good one. There is also telling his voice (flat, insincere) or showing actions that tell us why the writer wasn't convinced (His gaze flicked away from mine as he spoke.... His attention didn't break from the newspaper as he spoke... etc)

[Lady Ice]

'I love you,' he lied.

caw

See, that's an example of ambiguity. What would you term as lying? Deliberately masking the truth? Or not telling the whole truth?

I would probably read that sentence as 'he lied because he knew he didn't love her but didn't want to tell her'. However if he says it 'unconvincingly', he wants to believe it's true but cannot commit to it wholly. 'Unconvincingly' suggests guilt or uncertainty. And it shows how the other person perceived it. 'He lied' is far too simplistic and dismissive in this case. If he was saying 'Mary ate your cheese', 'lying' might be a better way of putting it.

[ladyinpink]

"I love you," he said.
She wasn't convinced. His voice lacked emotion, sincerity. He's hiding something, she thought.

For me, it lacks. You had to explain why you used unconvincingly, which means it wasn't clear. Perhaps more can be SHOWN instead of telling with a word that apparently (winks) wasn't conveying the intention of your dialogue clearly (winks)

See, I use adverbs! :)

on a side note, for those who WOULD like to limit use of adverbs, this is what works for me. I look at the adverb I want to use and ask WHY. If he smiled broadly, for example, what makes a broad smile? Maybe I can say the smile stretched across his face. Or... "she said annoyingly" can maybe show how she is being annoying. She kept repeating the phrase, tugging on my shirt each time. Couldn't she see the work in front of me? The deadline was in two days and half my work remained incomplete.

I'm not vouching these as the worlds best examples, but I hope the general idea is clear. What makes something slow (instead of slowly). Why is she being annoying (instead of annoyingly).

What makes the character or narrator use the adverb? then show us what they saw that made them write that. Sometimes, it makes more sense to use an adverb, but many times I feel it takes away from a chance to to show the reader whats going on. I feel like, okay, the writer saw/heard/felt something that made them say that. What? Why aren't they showing me too?

Or sometimes we just need a better word. Example: He walked slowly down the path can be He ambled down the path.

[Lady Ice]

I suppose it would make more sense in context (ha ha, look at me, I'm defending an example sentence!).

However I don't like 'he smiled broadly' swapped for 'a smile stretched across his face'. The second just sounds stupid. Him smiling broadly is not important enough to show and the description has become too cliche. If the situation has been established properly, we can accept that he smiled broadly. If it is a shock to us that he smiled, maybe the smile across his face would have more of an impact.

Instead of adverbs, I sometimes stick a simile on the end (but have to be careful that i don't do it too much):
'I love you,' he said, as if he were a checkout assistant totalling up the shopping.

[ladyinpink]

*nods* hey, i admitted it was a bad example, so we agree on something!

here is an example i gave in a blog comment:

He walked slowly to the door. He opened it quickly. "What's going on in here?" he exploded angrily.
"Oh, nothing," she said innocently.

Some will accept that, because "I've seen it in other books" where as other writers will actually use that to further show the story, develop the character, and show the narrators voice.

See here (and mind you, this could be rewritten a million different ways depending on the original voice of each narrator - without leaving it poorly written)

He ambled towards the door, and upon hearing several muffled voices, he swung it open. "What's going on in here?" He surveyed the scene, clenching his hand into a tight fist at his side.
Cheryl shot both of her hands into the air, gazing up to him from the ground. "Oh, nothing."
The way she batted her eyelashes didn't fool him.


again, i really stink at examples, but i do know when i look at my manuscipt, its thousands of times better when i LIMIT (not exclude) adverbs. I use them when they are the better word choice.

ps- he smiled broadly is just as cliche as describing what a broad smile looks like.

as a reader -ly words read awkward to me, especially when there are too many. i put the book down. makes it hard to get into a story when the writer is either 1) too lazy to SHOW me the story or 2) the writer thinks i'm an idiot who can't understand things so they use adverbs.

some people like them. some people like them in every other sentence. i don't. if someone wants to use them then by all means, go for it! whether or not someone else uses adverbs has no effect on me improving my own prose. in fact, i think im going to tell everyone i know that adverbs are God. then hopefully we all submit to the same agent at the same time... lol.... kidding of course!

[bearilou]

Okay, and now I have to backtrack. I went through my manuscript and found it was bloated with adverbs. At first I was busy trying to correct any that I could, then I stopped and thought, "This is how I write. I'll be a better writer someday, but this is how I express myself now." I think it would be foolish to go and change everything at this point. My book's genre is YA, in the first person. She's gonna have some adverbs--teens LOVE adverbs. So . . . I stand with my original stance and that is: I like adverbs, they taste like chocolate. To hell with perfection!!!!

While I sort of see and agree with the first half of this paragraph, the last sentence actually makes me sad.

[The Lonely One]

Yes, I do. I think the reason people attack adverbs so much is because they are such an easy trap to fall into. Adverbs are like the easy way out with description. Every literary tool serves a purpose but some seem to go wrong more readily than others. And for me personally, description is one of my weaknesses so I find myself having to watch myself closer there. :)

Makes perfect sense. You follow your own advice well. That's a good quality in a writer, I think.

[maestrowork]

*nods* there are many ways to avoid "unconvincingly" this is a good one. There is also telling his voice (flat, insincere) or showing actions that tell us why the writer wasn't convinced (His gaze flicked away from mine as he spoke.... His attention didn't break from the newspaper as he spoke... etc)

Exactly! (see, an adverb)

The problem with adverbs, often, isn't the adverbs themselves, but what they convey. Often it's 100x times more interesting and vivid if the writer shows us, instead of telling us, "oh, it's unconvincing." This one, IMHO, conveys lazy writing:

1. it's cliched and vague: what exactly is "unconvincing"?
2. it's a judgment, but whose? I guess it depends on the POV, right? If it's his point of view, then it's he who thinks he's unconvincing. But was he trying to convince her? Or was he just saying it as a matter of fact? If it's the other person, then it's that person who thinks he's unconvincing. But why would she think that? Still, it's not clear. It's just too broad.
3. it's summary. It's telling. Why not SHOW us exactly how unconvincing he is? Maybe his voice is a monotone? Maybe he's not even paying attention to what he says? Maybe his voice is too spirited to be real? Maybe he was reading his papers and mumbling the words while chewing his toast? Maybe he was reading his Playboy magazine? What? Show us instead. Often, it's better that way.

It's not to say the "he lied" version is better, but at least that's a direct fact, and it leaves the readers to make their own judgment. "Lie" is still a rather vague/broad verb, but at least it's a verb -- an action, a fact. "Lie" means he did not tell the truth. Now, you can argue "to what degree is this lie?" but that's just splitting hair. Lie is definitely less vague than "unconvincing" -- when he's unconvincing, does he love her, or doesn't love her, or is it just a matter of trying to make her believe him? What is it? It's so vague. But when he lies, it means just that: "I love you" is not the truth. There's no judgment on any of the character's part. The rest is up to the character to react (maybe she flung a pillow at him and said, "Liar! I saw your kissing the neighbor's wife!" or maybe she believed him and presented him with an anniversary gift? The fact is he LIED -- did not tell the truth. And the consequences of that is what interests us.)

Writing is about clarity. In this case, I would argue that the writing is not clear. It's too vague and depends too much on the narrative/POV judgment. It's telling the readers what to think, instead of allowing them to make up their own mind based on actions, facts, etc.

Again, there are no bad adverbs, just adverbs used badly. When you encounter an adverb in your work, examine it and see if you can do better than that, or whether it is just a crutch?

And there's no excuse of "he walks slowly." There are many verbs to describe that, so improve your vocabulary!

[The Lonely One]

Writing something like "I love you," he lied means the writer doesn't trust his scene to say that for him. But I won't get into that because it isn't an adverb argument at that point, it's just flat out telling v. showing.

[maestrowork]

Writing something like "I love you," he lied means the writer doesn't trust his scene to say that for him. But I won't get into that because it isn't an adverb argument at that point, it's just flat out telling v. showing.


Maybe, but it's still a fact. He lied. Maybe the writer doesn't trust her narrative to convey that more subtly, but it's still a fact like "the sun rises in the east." There's nothing inherently "telling" about it. Of course, you can write "the sun appeared above the horizon to my right when I was facing the North Pole." But that's just overkill. One can argue if "he lied" is a copout, or whether the writers should spend more time developing the character and making the readers "get it" instead of telling us outright: "he lied." Now, that's just a degree of details.

Still, "he lied" is a fact. Meanwhile, "he said unconvincingly" is a judgment.

[folkchick]

While I sort of see and agree with the first half of this paragraph, the last sentence actually makes me sad.

Well, that was me being careless and loud. I don't really think a person should avoid perfection. In fact, I am like many people who find themselves always climbing upwards, hoping for some sort of revelation. I believe in working hard; I've worked day and night on this book. And while I WILL, from now on, check every adverb usage to see if I can write something more descriptive, I also believe that it is okay to not always be "textbook" perfect. Perfect for ME is what I aim for. Perfect for my readers. Perfect for the story being told. But perfect for scholars, no.

Does anyone else adjust their writing per genre? I noticed that my blogs, which are commentary/nostalgia, are written much different than my book of YA fiction, most likely because of the voice. Are some people consistent with everything they write?

[Alpha Echo]

When you can't show an emotion or action or whatever any other way, I say use an adverb. Sometimes, it sounds funny if you don't. Just make sure it's the right one! Good luck. (This from a very rookie writer also.) :)

[blacbird]

I made the point about "he lied" perhaps more briefly than I should, it seems. The point was: there are a dozen ways to say what was intended without using the judgmental adverb, which Maestro has pointed out is weak (and vague) in a number of ways. Now, which would work better is a matter of context, such as limitations imposed by POV, so this isolated sentence can be rendered in various incarnations.

But among the most common weak uses of adverbs is the "he said -------ly" dialogue attribution. Tom Swifties are only the most amusing examples. The dictum "Use and adverb only when it's the best choice" is the best guideline I know. The sentence under discussion was an excellent example of when an adverb is not the best choice.

caw

[ladyinpink]

1) there really is no such thing as perfect in writing
2) no one is suggestion using adverbs makes writing less perfect - only overusing them
3) yes, i adjust my voice based on my main character
4) when i write YA, and this is just me, the YA shows more in their personality, what they notice, and the simplicity of their word choice (which doesn't mean 1,000 adverbs) but - in my story - its past tense and she is telling her story as an adult now, and she was a very mature 17yo to begin with.

to alpha- can you give an example, please.

also, i know many YAs who don't read YA novels because they feel like the character is immature. A lot of times i see stories written with the main character being 16, but its written more like a 12 year old voice. So just be careful that in trying to have a teen voice you don't right a novel that teens are going to be annoyed with or feel "babied" by.

Keep in mind also, even in first person, the voice of a 17yo character might not be 17. it depends how old the person is when they tell the story of "when they were 17"

[Lady Ice]

Too many adverbs are annoying, agreed. They make the writing less fluent. But sometimes you just need to move the reader on. If one minor shopkeeper asks you for your money 'rudely', that is just a vexing observation which adds to the background of the story. It's mildly amusing- not worth expanding on. Especially in action stories or ones with quick plots, description has to be selective.

I am guilty of treading the fine line between vague and ambiguous, I admit. Being used to writing plays, I like to provoke questions, leave something up to the reader. So sometimes I hold back when writing a novel and it just becomes vague.

And I agree with one of the posts above me where they advise to focus on the facts. That's why some physical descriptions feel very forced, as if someone's merely translating an adverb into an action.

Description does my head in. So annoying.

[maestrowork]

A lot of times, though, "he said rudely" means the dialogue/context hasn't done its job. Again, examine these adverbs to see if they're the best choices, and I would wager that 8 out of 10 times, they are not. As writers, we can also do better, even if the scene is minor and we just want to move on. Don't do the "lazy writing" thing no matter how attractive that sounds.

[ladyinpink]

meh. I rather be shown how something is done then told.
Asking for money rudely can be shown in the dialogue. You wouldn't need to write "he said rudely" or even show with action what rude looks like. in that case, the dialogue would show that he was being rude. "Are you going to pay for that, or what? I ain't got all day, kid." (why would you need to put "he said rudely" at the end of that?) Unless you are referring to contradictions "May I have the money for your purchase, please?" he said rudely. In which case, PLEASE don't do that. By time I read "rudely" I've already read the sentence in a polite voice. Also these contradictions can be hard to imagine and I'm left thinking how it was said rudely. An action before hand might help (but that would still defeat the purpose of the clumsy dialogue tag)

such as: She placed her hands her hips and huffed. "Are you ready to pay yet?"
versus: She smiled at him as she placed his purchase in the bag "Are you ready to pay yet?" (Though, even in this case i think the dialogue would be different - "Are you ready to pay, sir?" or "how would you like to pay for this purchase?" etc.

I agree not all adverbs are bad. I agree they should be used when getting into description doesn't make sense. I don't think we need 5 paragraphs in place of one adverb. Adverbs are good for conveying an idea when showing would slow down the pace or become confusing. They have a place, but in my own writing its not a very big place.

This is my preference as a reader. There are lots of books that have a lot of adverbs in them and they are best sellers. thats the "winning argument" we tend to see a lot. hence my blog post :P but in my experience in working with other writer friends, while we used to use adverbs a lot, as we honed our writing skills and learned how to SHOW clearly, we haven't found a need to use those telling words nearly as often as we once did.

In real life, people use adverbs. I don't want to read real life though. I live it. I want to read something more interesting then real life. For me, this comes through in both the story and in the writing itself. The two work together to make a great novel.

[ladyinpink]

A lot of times, though, "he said rudely" means the dialogue/context hasn't done its job. Again, examine these adverbs to see if they're the best choices, and I would wager that 8 out of 10 times, they are not. As writers, we can also do better, even if the scene is minor and we just want to move on.

we were posting at the same time, but yours makes a much nicer summary :)

[Lady Ice]

It's hard to get the balance right. If it's 1st person POV, people do think mainly in adverbs. They get a feeling that something has been spoken rudely. In that instance, a clever physical description wouldn't be believable. Maybe in an artistic character who has a reason to be particular observant, but not in Mr Lazy Slob. It's hard to distinguish between that and just lazy writing.

[maestrowork]

It's hard to get the balance right. If it's 1st person POV, people do think mainly in adverbs. They get a feeling that something has been spoken rudely. It's hard to distinguish between that and just lazy writing.

My suggestion is: write whatever during first draft. But during rewrites, examine each word and phrase and make them shine. Don't rely on first instincts, especially if you have a tendency to use adverbs to summarize (instead of showing us how "rudely" it really is).

So in first draft, you may have:

I put on my coat.
"$10 please," he said rudely.

In rewrites, it can be edited:

I put on my coat.
The waiter glared at me. "Are you going to pay now or what?"

[ladyinpink]

I don't stand by the 1st person POV as excuse for poor writing. Pretend your fiction novel is an autobiography. Whose is going to sell? good prose, or bad prose? the reality is, the person is still sharing a story. If you are writing in first person POV the reader wants a strong character. You can show their laziness in other ways, though I'm not sure a lazy MAIN character is really the best option. I mean, technically, if they are lazy, the book probably ends after page 3 or 4. So, its not an excuse IMO to use lots of adverbs.

The thing I think is what your MC experience. Then finding a way for them to convey that experience in a way that the reader can feel the experience to.

For example. Your MC will experience whatever it is that made the person seem rude (was it what they said? did they give some kind of dirty look as they said it? WHAT is making it rude? the character had to have noticed what was rude in order to make the rude judgement) So, as story teller, no matter how lazy they might be, they should be trying to share that experience with the reader. Put us in their shoes. I rather experience with them (shown the story) than be told about it like a recap of a football game I didn't get to see.

[Lady Ice]

The lazy main character's just an example. It's just that if the character is supposed to be uneducated or not much of a reader, when the writer starts throwing in verbose words and poetic descriptions, it sounds strange.

[maestrowork]

The lazy main character's just an example. It's just that if the character is supposed to be uneducated or not much of a reader, when the writer starts throwing in verbose words and poetic descriptions, it sounds strange.

Read Forrest Gump or Patricia's Lottery and see how they do it. Just because your narrator is uneducated, etc. doesn't mean you have to write sloppily. Fiction is about verisimilitude, but not a carbon copy of real life. No one said anything about verbose words or flowery descriptions. And you do NOT need those to get rid of vague adverbs.

[folkchick]

Here's an example from my book. Granted, I already admitted to not being the greatest writer yet. But, I think the way Emma narrates is fitting. No one knows how old she is in current times, and it would be distracting to make her sound too sophisticated while recalling the summer she was 18. Please note the adverbs, lol.

With a sigh he leaned back against the tree, brushed his hair out of his eyes in exasperation, then hesitated in annoyance at my casual disbelief. “I’m just wondering how old you are. What is it about this little girl that fate would deem so special as to place me in your mercy?”

What was special about me? This wasn’t something I thought about very often, because the answer was obvious. I wasn’t special at all. I was neither breathtakingly beautiful, nor brilliantly smart. I had some talents in the arts, and I was for the most part a kind person who loved to help others, but special . . . no, I wasn’t that. Finding no answer, I shrugged.

That’s when my laughing stopped. “Little girl? I’m eighteen-”

[maestrowork]

To me, folkchick, your adverbs are used for effects. "breathtakingly beautiful, nor brilliantly smart" -- to me -- reads as sarcasm. Not only beautiful, but "breathtakingly beautiful" and not only smart, but "brilliantly smart." If you have reduced the sentence to "breathtaking and brilliant," (which are enough to mean beautiful and smart!), it would have lost the sarcastic quality to that statement.

That proves my point. There are no bad adverbs, only adverbs used badly. In this case, the adverbs are used for good reasons, and they work.

[folkchick]

Thank you Maestro. I'm looking over the other ones in the book as I go along. But, yeah, these fit well--reflecting not only Emma's personality but the kind of language a teen would to use express themselves.

[ladyinpink]

Here's an example from my book. Granted, I already admitted to not being the greatest writer yet. But, I think the way Emma narrates is fitting. No one knows how old she is in current times, and it would be distracting to make her sound too sophisticated while recalling the summer she was 18. Please note the adverbs, lol.

With a sigh he leaned back against the tree, brushed his hair out of his eyes in exasperation, then hesitated in annoyance at my casual disbelief. “I’m just wondering how old you are. What is it about this little girl that fate would deem so special as to place me in your mercy?”

What was special about me? This wasn’t something I thought about very often, because the answer was obvious. I wasn’t special at all. I was neither breathtakingly beautiful, nor brilliantly smart. I had some talents in the arts, and I was for the most part a kind person who loved to help others, but special . . . no, I wasn’t that. Finding no answer, I shrugged.

That’s when my laughing stopped. “Little girl? I’m eighteen-”

Hope you don't mind me popping in. the adverbs were not what jarred me in that passage. "With a sigh he leaned back against the tree, brushed his hair out of his eyes in exasperation, then hesitated in annoyance at my casual disbelief. "

I don't like being told emotion. I wonder, how does a first person character know that another character is doing something "in annoyance" How does she know is hesitation was "in annoyance of her casual disbelief"? How does she know that she was in disbelief or that it was casual? what is casual disbelief anyway? Way too much telling going on here and in addition to that, too much telling of things that *might* be going on inside his head. Of course, ignore this is your MC is telepathic. In that case, she might know those things.

If you want help showing emotion, this blog might help:
http://thebookshelfmuse.blogspot.com/

as for the double adverb, I agree its for an effect (the same effect was applied three times in the sentence I pointed out - which creates an effect used five times in one passage - and, for me, that's a bit much.) Mind you I understand that sometimes we read people and make assumptions (which is what your MC is doing and why you told it this way) but if you are looking for an area to improve in, avoiding omniscience in first person would help a ton, in my opinion. You can still keep her teen voice, promise :)

If you want more help with this, send me a private message.

[folkchick]

Thanks for the link and advice. It's always good to get helpful information from other writers!

[Albannach]

I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English - it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don't mean utterly, but kill most of them - then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart. An adjective habit, or a wordy, diffuse, flowery habit, once fastened upon a person, is as hard to get rid of as any other vice.

- Mark Twain's letter to D. W. Bowser, 20 March 1880

The same advice, I believe, applies to adverbs.