Thread: Adverbs...

So here's a question that's been bugging me for quite some time. I always considered my style of writing to be fairly simplistic (out of choice, rather than necessity) and I usually prefer short, lean sentences over long Dickensian meanders. I'm the kind of writer who'd sooner tell a story through dialogue and action than description. However, as I've come along with my first 'real' novel I've noticed that I'm increasingly starting to use adverbs, particularly when writing dialogue, and I was wondering what other people thought about the issue. I recently read Stephen King's book 'On Writing', in which he dedicates a sizeable chunk to criticizing heavy adverb use, particularly in dialogue (i.e "I love you," Fred said, breathlessly). I don't remember that he ever gives any specific reason why he doesn't like them, only that he considered them lazy and amateurish. I should also say that I'm generally a big fan of King's writing style and I use a lot of horror elements in my fiction so I have reason to value his opinion.

So my question is, in your opinion, how much use of adverbs is considered acceptable? And has anyone got any idea of why writers like King don't like them? Obviously this is a personal preference issue, but that's exactly what I'm looking for.

King criticises their use and yet he uses them religiously in his novels. I started a thread which may be of benefit to you on this subject. It might do no harm to have a read through it: http://www.writingforums.com/writing...e-adverbs.html

Before you start stroking your red pen through every adverb, consider that they are the mainstay of every published book in existence. If publishers and readers didn't want them, editors would remove them before the novel made it to print. And to say they're 'weak' writing (on King's behalf) is disrespectful to every author who came before and will succeed Mr King in the future.

One opinion does not a rule make.

It's up to you.

Early on in my writing, I posted a story and someone pointed out that I'd used a lot of adverbs -- some like the dialog example you gave. He didn't say don't use them at all, but he rewrote a few sentences without them, and in one place showed me how a more precise verb did the job. I made a few changes accordingly -- and I liked the way it read better.

Very often, it's simply a case of eliminating a word that isn't needed because the context of the verb does the job -- or there is a more precise verb that works better. If you appreciate a certain economy of words -- then it's something you can keep in mind.

I use adverbs. For example in the last story I posted, I wrote that a character, "quietly rolled out of bed." He was in bed with his wife, and I wanted to show that he was trying to get out of bed in a way that wouldn’t wake her. There isn't a more precise adverb for it than I'm aware of. And in this case, the context wasn't enough to show he was making the effort. So the adverb stayed.

Look at what your favorite authors do. Vary the amount of adverbs you use and how you use them -- read your work and see what feels best to you. As you should with most writing advice, take advice on adverb use with a grain of salt – and then decide for yourself.

If adverbs make for bad writing style, then I need to just pack it in right now, lol!

Most novels don't use many adverbs at all. Ones that do use too many really stick out - I recently tried to read The Sword of Shannara and there were loads of adverbs on every page and it was really grating. James Patterson uses loads, too. Stephen King does use adverbs, but he doesn't use a lot.

I think a judicious use of adverbs is fine. For me, the problem arises when writers rely on adverbs instead of context, or when the adverbs are redundant (ie, the way something is done is clear as crystal without them and they're used anyway).

One of our national sins as Americans is a tendency to exaggerate. Adverbs and adjectives both lend themselves to exaggeration. Another sin: much of our culture is superficial. Does it matter what something looks like? Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. We can better convey the value of something by showing or telling what it does instead of what it looks like so use verbs instead of modifiers. In your example above, "I love you," he panted or some other verb of your choice.

Originally Posted by C.M. Aaron

One of our national sins as Americans is a tendency to exaggerate. Adverbs and adjectives both lend themselves to exaggeration. Another sin: much of our culture is superficial. Does it matter what something looks like? Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. We can better convey the value of something by showing or telling what it does instead of what it looks like so use verbs instead of modifiers. In your example above, "I love you," he panted or some other verb of your choice.

But then one runs into the problem of ridiculous dialogue tags. Is it really possible to sneeze, snort, giggle, or smile a word, let alone a sentence?

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

But then one runs into the problem of ridiculous dialogue tags. Is it really possible to sneeze, snort, giggle, or smile a word, let alone a sentence?

I think it's always better to write,

"You sure got that right!" he laughed.

Rather than,

"You sure got that right!" he said jovily.

Originally Posted by Walkio

I think it's always better to write,

"You sure got that right!" he laughed.

Rather than,

"You sure got that right!" he said jovily.

Or one could go for "You sure got that right!" He laughed. or "You sure got that right!" he said, laughing.

Of course, not all verb dialogue tags are ridiculous - I'm only saying they can be, and thus turn into as big a problem as (if not bigger than) an adverb could be.

It is a question of balance, don't use adverbs to tell when you should be showing - Moderation in all things.

Originally Posted by Walkio

I think it's always better to write,

"You sure got that right!" he laughed.

You can't laugh a sentence. Therefore, that 'he laughed' isn't a dialogue tag. It's a new sentence on its own and needs to be capitalised.

Rather than

"You sure got that right!" he said jovily.

No such word as 'jovily'. On the other hand, people do speak jovially from time to time. What's wrong with it?

Most novels don't use many adverbs at all. Ones that do use too many really stick out - I recently tried to read The Sword of Shannara and there were loads of adverbs on every page and it was really grating. James Patterson uses loads, too. Stephen King does use adverbs, but he doesn't use a lot.

Allow me to be blunt: Nonsense. Most novels don't use many adverbs? On what are you basing this hypothesis? I just opened the first page of a novel on my bookshelf (Airframe by Michael Crichton) and there are five adverbs in it. You want to know the interesting thing? Only one of them ends in '-ly'. Did you know near, asleep, often and almost were adverbs? Or did you know that there are at least fifty words ending in '-ly' which aren't adverbs?

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.

Adverbs are like salt; to be used when needed. An overload of adverbs kills a sentence just as a fistful of salt kills the stew. To prohibit their use altogether is to discard a useful tool.

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.

There are practical guidelines for specific kinds of writing. For example, the first sentence in a radio news bulletin should be no more than 20 words and should be in the active voice. That's a guideline, not a commandment, but it's based on field experience and follows from Rule Number One. It works.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

So my question is, in your opinion, how much use of adverbs is considered acceptable?

Acceptability is subjective. In the many books I've read, adverb usage has varied widely. I can't recall a single one in which the adverb usage has been a problem for me as a reader.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

And has anyone got any idea of why writers like King don't like them?

Adverbs -- and the discussion about adverbs is usually related to the -ly form so we can leave the rest out of it for the sake of the discussion -- can be over-used, and they can be poorly used. Conventional wisdom is generally geared at avoiding over-use and poor use, and for some people avoiding them almost altogether is considered a solution.

Some people also associate adverbs with being 'tell' rather than 'show', particularly in dialogue tags, and think they should be avoided for that reason. Personally, I think such people probably have a poor understanding of the whole show-tell thing. I've even seen someone add a couple of hundred words of pure tell to provide 'context' for the dialogue in order to avoid a single adverb in a dialogue tag.

Originally Posted by JosephB

I use adverbs. For example in the last story I posted, I wrote that a character, "quietly rolled out of bed." He was in bed with his wife, and I wanted to show that he was trying to get out of bed in a way that wouldn’t wake her. There isn't a more precise adverb for it than I'm aware of. And in this case, the context wasn't enough to show he was making the effort. So the adverb stayed.

"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.