Thread: Adverbs...

Originally Posted by Sam W

I cannot for the life of me see why they would be grating. They're just words. The problem is that new (and seasoned) writers have been inculcated to believe that adverbs are bad when in fact every book that has ever (did you know 'ever' is also an adverb? In fact, did you know 'also' is also an adverb?) been written uses them. A lot. Please do not make statements to the contrary. I guarantee you that if I open any modern book I will find an adverb on the first page. What I've just demonstrated is that many people do not ('not' being another) know what an adverb actually is.

As Rob has mentioned, when we say 'adverb' we tend to mean words that modify a verb ending in -ly. Yes, every book uses them, probably on every page. That doesn't mean you can't use too many of them. James Patterson uses far too many - almost every other sentence, it seems like. And the fact is, if you notice a lot of adverbs in a book you get taken out of the story.

The reason you should use adverbs sparingly is because they are often needless, and needless words = bad writing (one -ly adverb per 350 word page is not overkill).

For instance, 'He ran quickly' is not as strong as, 'He sprinted' or 'He darted' or 'He raced'. You can often replace a weak verb/adverb combo with a stronger verb.

And I think you can laugh whilst speaking.

Originally Posted by garza

Here's the only general writing rule I've ever followed, and I believe it can apply to fiction as well as non-fiction.

Rule Number One: Use whatever works.

Unfortunately, when it comes to fiction, there's no real consensus about what works.

The guideline is to not overuse them. Sometimes they work, other times they don't.

Originally Posted by Rob

"crept out of bed" might have done it. But if I'd read "quietly rolled out of bed" I doubt that I'd have batted an eyelid over it.

Splitting hairs, maybe -- but "rolled out of bed" suggests a specific action that I can visualize. So it's better to modify that with "quietly" -- rather than use a verb that isn't as precise just for the sake of eliminating the adverb. To me, this was a case of more is more.

Originally Posted by Walkio

As Rob has mentioned, when we say 'adverb' we tend to mean words that modify a verb ending in -ly. Yes, every book uses them, probably on every page. That doesn't mean you can't use too many of them. James Patterson uses far too many - almost every other sentence, it seems like. And the fact is, if you notice a lot of adverbs in a book you get taken out of the story.

Oh, I get you. You just want to avoid using a certain type of adverb; just the '-ly' ending ones. The rest of them are fine, are they? Pardon my frankness, but what a load of rubbish. If you read the thread which I linked in the start of this discussion, you'll see a post of mine which demonstrates that last year's winner of the Booker prize for literature had no fewer than five adverbs in the first paragraph. This was a book voted the best of the year by literary-minded people. If adverbs are as bad as you seem to suggest, why didn't the critics tear the book apart instead of awarding it the Booker?

The reason you should use adverbs sparingly is because they are often needless, and needless words = bad writing (one -ly adverb per 350 word page is not overkill).

Here's a line from the first paragraph of the late Robert Ludlum's The Matlock Paper, which just happened to be the closest book to my hand: It was nearly five-thirty, a spring Friday, and the congestion in the Washington streets was awful.

Go on, tell me that 'nearly' is wrong. Want to use the word 'almost' instead? It's also an adverb. By your token Robert Ludlum is a bad writer, despite the fact that he's sold over 300 million copies, which have been translated in 32 languages, and was considered one of the greatest writers of the modern era.

Next paragraph: He unconsciously drew back his right forearm, allowing his sleeve to cover as much of his hand as possible -- to conceal the thin black chain looped around his wrist, locked to the briefcase handle.

Another adverb which I dare anyone to tell me is 'weak', 'bad', or 'unnecessary'. Don't you think that if this adverb malarkey had any real substance to it, authors would have picked up on it by now and cut out their usage? I just bought a new book by the author Marc Cameron. In the first paragraph, the following can be found:

White cords from an iPod trailed from his ears, one cord cut neatly in two and partially embedded in the gore.

It seems to me that authors seek perfection in their work, even though it can't be achieved. So it would make sense that if the collective opinion of today's literary giants was that adverbs equalled 'bad' writing, we would see less of them. Since we aren't, would it not be safe to say that there is no substance at all to the notion that adverbs are wrong? If anyone would know, surely it would be those who write for a living.

And I think you can laugh whilst speaking.

I never said you couldn't. I said you can't laugh a sentence. Dialogue tags follow a comma: "That's brilliant," Jack said. Since you can't laugh the words 'that's brilliant', you can't laugh a sentence. Therefore, a full-stop and new sentence are needed.

Originally Posted by Sam W

Oh, I get you. You just want to avoid using a certain type of adverb; just the '-ly' ending ones. The rest of them are fine, are they? Pardon my frankness, but what a load of rubbish. If you read the thread which I linked in the start of this discussion, you'll see a post of mine which demonstrates that last year's winner of the Booker prize for literature had no fewer than five adverbs in the first paragraph. This was a book voted the best of the year by literary-minded people. If adverbs are as bad as you seem to suggest, why didn't the critics tear the book apart instead of awarding it the Booker?

Actually, Sam, the paragraph you quoted in that thread contains not one of the -ly verb-modifying adverbs usually spoken of when discussing good and bad adverb usage. None.

I said it has five adverbs in it. If you read the start of the post you quoted, Rob, you would have seen the sarcastic comment I made about avoiding one type of adverb. An adverb is an adverb. Whether it ends with '-ly' or not, it's still an adverb.

Originally Posted by Sam W

An adverb is an adverb. Whether it ends with '-ly' or not, it's still an adverb.

Yes, but there are several different types of adverb. The ones in the paragraph you posted are not the type that people complain about.

Originally Posted by Rob

Yes, but there are several different types of adverb. The ones in the paragraph you posted are not the type that people complain about.

Exactly – we’re all talking about a specific kind of adverb. Some examples I pulled from various articles:

"He screamed shrilly."

"She crept stealthily."

"He yelled angrily."

They’re obviously redundant.

It’s not about ALL adverbs – or words that end in “ly” that aren’t adverbs.

This is all pretty simple – unless you want to go out of your way to make it complicated for the sake of arguing about it.

The advice given out on forums is 'avoid adverbs'. Nobody ever mentions what type of adverbs should be avoided. Rather, what they do is assume that all adverbs end in '-ly' and therefore should be avoided. I have never heard anyone say "only avoid adverbs that end in '-ly'". Never.

An adverb is an adverb.

Well, this is a writing forum – one the most popular -- and everyone here but you seems to be on the same page -- we’re all talking about “ly” adverbs.

And so far, no one has said "avoid adverbs." Go figure.

Originally Posted by Sam W

The advice given out on forums is 'avoid adverbs'. Nobody ever mentions what type of adverbs should be avoided. Rather, what they do is assume that all adverbs end in '-ly' and therefore should be avoided. I have never heard anyone say "only avoid adverbs that end in '-ly'". Never.

An adverb is an adverb.

Well Sam, you're the only person I've ever known who's insisted that the argument is about all adverb types, and I've seen this discussion many times over. Good luck with that one.

Originally Posted by JosephB

Well, this is a writing forum – one the most popular -- and everyone here but you seems to be on the same page -- we’re all talking about “ly” adverbs.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

I recently read Stephen King's book 'On Writing', in which he dedicates a sizeable chunk to criticizing heavy adverb use . . . So my question is, in your opinion, how much use of adverbs is considered acceptable?

For a reader, you might want to brush up on your comprehension skills, Joe. The OP said adverbs. No mention was made of a specific kind.

Originally Posted by JosephB

And so far, no one has said "avoid adverbs." Go figure.

Originally Posted by Rob

and for some people avoiding them almost altogether is considered a solution.

Rob seems to think avoiding them entirely is the solution.

Speaking up loudly and persistently,
Argumentatively, consistently,
Unavoidably adverbially
Reverberating factions verbally
Abuse each other with rules in place of
Inventive, intelligent writing and love.


Not very deep, but it was fun.

Originally Posted by Rob

Well Sam, you're the only person I've ever known who's insisted that the argument is about all adverb types, and I've seen this discussion many times over. Good luck with that one.

'Use adjectives sparingly'.

That's a piece of advice I've encountered before. I wonder if they mean to use adjectives that end in '-ly' sparingly, or use them all sparingly? It would stand to reason that 'adjectives' covers the entire collection. So, to give advice for a writer to use adverbs sparingly means for them to use all adverbs sparingly. You can't chop and choose just to suit your own argument/rule system. That's nonsense.

What's the difference between 'almost' and 'nearly'. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Except for the fact that self-important writers see the -'ly- and turn their nose up at it.