Thread: For Those Who Despise Adverbs

I guess as writers we've heard it so many times that it almost seems a set-in-stone rule at this point. The belief that all adverbs should be stricken from your work as though they were derogatory. People see words ending in '-ly' and the red pen comes out as fast as a cowboy draws a six-shooter. Yet there's no concern for the fact that many words ending in '-ly' aren't even adverbs. What's even more confounding is that there are dozens of adverbs don't end in '-ly' at all!

Almost, always, never, less, more, not, often, too, fast, far, even, well, very, soon, afterwards, seldom, tomorrow, yesterday, abroad, downstairs, home, nowhere, outside, somewhere, underground, out, in, later, next, while, when, then, here, there.

Are you going to avoid these adverbs as well? Are you going to cut out almost a quarter of the words in the English language because someone tells you to? I'm all for tightening writing, but I had two professional editors ask me recently why I declined to use many '-ly' adverbs in my novel but instead used three or four words to say the same thing. That's not tight writing, in my opinion.

I think it's a steep descent that writers are being taken down. For me, it can't lead anywhere good. Just keep this post in mind the next time you think of taking your red pen to an adverb.

You make a great point here Sam. I tend to think that it's when the words are overused that the problems come in. But if used well, I see no reason not to use them.

I think the suggestion comes about because an excess of those 'ly' words tends to make for pretty crappy writing.

Kath thought, thoughtfully, as she sat, quietly, and pondered, ponderously.

Unfortunately no one said 'excess' from the majority of posts I've read on different writing sites. The basic rule of thumb is to 'avoid them like the plague'. Which makes, in my opinion, as much sense as telling a guitarist to avoid playing C or E on his guitar.

That said, what you have above is a case of reductio ad absurdum. No one would ever write that someone 'thought thoughtfully' or 'pondered ponderously'. It's a hyperbolic redundancy.

I'm sure someone, somewhere said "excess".

Every writer worth their salt knows that no so-called rules are to be followed blindly.
Anyone inclined to do so probably won't wind up being much of a writer.

Originally Posted by Like a Fox

Every writer worth their salt knows that no so-called rules are to be followed blindly.
Anyone inclined to do so probably won't wind up being much of a writer.

Absolutely.

I've been hanging around writing sites for a good while -- and most of the time when I've seen this stuff about not using adverbs it's been in threads like this one. A few times, I've seen critiques or posts where people have said something to the effect of "you might not need to use so many adverbs" -- but I can't recall a single time when it's been laid down as some kind of absolute rule. I've never seen anyone say "avoid them like the plague." This whole thing about people going around writing sites telling other people to avoid adverbs has been totally blown out of proportion. I just don't see it -- especially where it counts most -- in the areas where people post and critique work.

There is no such rule that says you can't or should never use them. If there were such a rule, as Fox said, most writers would ignore it anyways, and be all the better for it. From my understanding, adverbs are something you should take it easy on, but, as most of us are aware, that goes for most descriptive devices.

Simile and metaphor: Excellent ways to show you off your creativity and, when used properly, they're great in describing a characteristic or act more succinctly than with other modifiers.

Passive voice: Kind of inevitable, but something all writers should strive to use sparingly.

Telling instead of showing: Excellent for transitions and other means of getting from Point A to Point B, but not something you want to use exclusively.

Which brings me to my next point: Adverbs are a form of telling, not showing. If you say, "'Blah blah blah,' Jack said quietly," you're telling us how Jack spoke, but if you say "'Blah blah blah,' Jack mumbled," then you're showing us. Strong action verbs will always immerse your reader better than adverbs. That puts the reader directly in the action of the story, rather than just telling them how the action was done.

None of the above paragraphs say that you shouldn't use adverbs, or that you should avoid them like the plague. My opinion is to push yourself. If you can think of a good verb that'll describe the action better than the adverb, use that. If you can't, leave the adverb. But in my case, if I'm editing something and I see more than X amount of adverbs close together, I go out of my way to eliminate them--sometimes even saying to myself "If I delete this adverb, is it really going to change anything?" I do the same thing with adjectives, and you'd be surprised how many times the answer is no.

(And by the way, Sam, I believe William Safire was attributed the quote "Avoid cliches like the plague," not adverbs.)

Yes. I remember Adlestrop—

The name, because one afternoon

Of heat the express-train drew up there

Unwontedly. It was late June.

From Adlestrop by Edward Thomas

Go on - Tell me that is wrong....

I was just about going to say that those were not adverbs.
I was not even aware they were adverbs until now.
aren't they something to do with conjunctions as counjunctives?
I might be totally wrong here..
In order to avoid LY I usualy use WITH like this:

instead of
he gave generously
I put
he gave with generosity

Originally Posted by Tiamat10

There is no such rule that says you can't or should never use them. If there were such a rule, as Fox said, most writers would ignore it anyways, and be all the better for it. From my understanding, adverbs are something you should take it easy on, but, as most of us are aware, that goes for most descriptive devices.

Simile and metaphor: Excellent ways to show you off your creativity and, when used properly, they're great in describing a characteristic or act more succinctly than with other modifiers.

Passive voice: Kind of inevitable, but something all writers should strive to use sparingly.

Telling instead of showing: Excellent for transitions and other means of getting from Point A to Point B, but not something you want to use exclusively.

Which brings me to my next point: Adverbs are a form of telling, not showing. If you say, "'Blah blah blah,' Jack said quietly," you're telling us how Jack spoke, but if you say "'Blah blah blah,' Jack mumbled," then you're showing us. Strong action verbs will always immerse your reader better than adverbs. That puts the reader directly in the action of the story, rather than just telling them how the action was done.

None of the above paragraphs say that you shouldn't use adverbs, or that you should avoid them like the plague. My opinion is to push yourself. If you can think of a good verb that'll describe the action better than the adverb, use that. If you can't, leave the adverb. But in my case, if I'm editing something and I see more than X amount of adverbs close together, I go out of my way to eliminate them--sometimes even saying to myself "If I delete this adverb, is it really going to change anything?" I do the same thing with adjectives, and you'd be surprised how many times the answer is no.

(And by the way, Sam, I believe William Safire was attributed the quote "Avoid cliches like the plague," not adverbs.)

What I'm saying is none of it matters. Passive, showing, telling, adverbs, simile, metaphor, adjectives. I sold over 300 books when I self-published. Of that number, there was not one reader who, when I met them sometime later, said to me I didn't show enough or used too many adverbs. It's only writers who turn their noses up at such things. Readers don't give a good g****mn. They only want to be entertained and read a good story.

That being said, I'm not saying you should be lackadaisical with your writing. I'm not advocating that we take no care with our words and become clones of Stephenie Meyer. I'm just saying that it seems ludicrous to remove words from your vocabulary. And, yes, I have seen people say 'avoid adverbs like the plague'. I've seen a published author on this very site advise a new writer to avoid them like the plague.

When it comes to action, I completely agree that adverbs bog the reader down in meaningless prose. That's different. Action scenes (unless you're writing a thriller or action-based novel) are usually rare. They're supposed to convey immediacy. Therefore, sentences describing them need to be tight and devoid of superfluous words. That's a valid point. But not every page of your novel is filled with action. Not every page needs to be scrutinised to that degree.

And, for the record, who made telling the eighth deadly sin? This whole fascination with showing has writers thinking that it must be done at all times. There was a new thread here not too long ago where a writer asked how he could change a scene to showing because he was told he couldn't use telling. That is where I'm coming from. This advice is being taken so literally that people are beginning to think it's 'rules'.

I'll issue an open challenge to this forum. If anyone can tell me of a book written in the last two centuries that doesn't contain some of the following, I will hang up my writing boots for good:

• Adverbs
• Passive voice
• Telling
• Adjectives
• Prologues

No one here is saying that good writers don't occasionally use all those things.

And of course readers don't care. They mightn't be able to tell why exactly they're so bored and they put a book down, but that could easily happen and it could easily be due to weak writing. So it's nice that writers help each other out and try and assist each other in avoiding doing that. If some people choose to do that by doling out absolutes then it's up to the individual to take it with a grain of salt.

When I began taking writing seriously, I subscribed to a writing magazine (whose name is not dissimilar to this very site)--still do subscribe, infact--and soon picked up on many of these rules. I thought it'd be a nightmare to learn them. I think the good writer, or the writer with the potential to be good, is the one with the ability to decide when to apply these rules and when they can be ignored. Who makes the rules, anyway? And aren't they there to be broken? If there's a rule about not using em dashes to follow parentheses, I just broke it.

I started a story the other day with: On Essex Street, the old school building was freshly painted and brightly lit.

Yesterday, I changed it to: The old school building was clean and brightly lit.

Then to: The old school building was clean and well lit.

The address was unnecessary to the story, and the final version is more succinct and retains the image I wanted. I'm fully aware I changed two -ly adverbs and inserted "well" as an adverb, but I can honestly say I gave no thought whatsoever to what type of words they were. My only thought was of tightening up the writing. I only realised what I'd done when looking at this thread.

And I didn't realise I was referencing Hemingway either, until I read it back and it sounded familiar.

Originally Posted by Tiamat10

Which brings me to my next point: Adverbs are a form of telling, not showing.

Agreed. I think that is the larger point here. Not that adverbs are bad, but that their use should be questioned in favor of stronger, more precise verbs. And I think they are sometimes indicative of lazy writing, especially when used to modify dialogue tags, i.e., "John said enthusiastically".

Originally Posted by Tiamat10

Which brings me to my next point: Adverbs are a form of telling, not showing. If you say, "'Blah blah blah,' Jack said quietly," you're telling us how Jack spoke, but if you say "'Blah blah blah,' Jack mumbled," then you're showing us. Strong action verbs will always immerse your reader better than adverbs. That puts the reader directly in the action of the story, rather than just telling them how the action was done.

Adverbs are no more telling than nouns. There is always a case for using a stronger verb if there is one, rather than a verb and adverb, but that's about word choice rather than showing and telling. If an adverb is the right word, use it. If it's not, don't. In your example, mumbling doesn't simply mean to speak quietly. With mumbling the speech is indistinct. But both "John mumbled" and "John said quietly" are both 'telling' the reader how John spoke. It's okay to tell the reader how John spoke.

Originally Posted by Rob

Adverbs are no more telling than nouns. There is always a case for using a stronger verb if there is one, rather than a verb and adverb, but that's about word choice rather than showing and telling. If an adverb is the right word, use it. If it's not, don't. In your example, mumbling doesn't simply mean to speak quietly. With mumbling the speech is indistinct. But both "John mumbled" and "John said quietly" are both 'telling' the reader how John spoke. It's okay to tell the reader how John spoke.

Exactly!

I understand where Steph is coming from, though. I like to show clenched jaws and gritted teeth at times. But saying 'John gritted his teeth' is still telling. To show that John gritted his teeth you would have to do something like this:

As John finished berating him, Jack heard a grimace-inducing sound; of two hard objects grinding against each other. When he looked up, John's teeth were bared, moving from side to side, his face as red as his hair.

I don't know about you, but having to read that at every other line of dialogue would be cringe-inducing for another reason entirely.