# Do adverbs throw you?



## J.R. Chase (Jun 22, 2010)

Hi folks,

New KB member here.  I enjoyed the "Do typos throw you" thread below.  

Like most I can forgive a few typos.  But the adverbs.  Ouch.  One book I recently started had 4 adverbs in the very first paragraph.  It's enough for me to put it down.  Feels like the writer is putting the brakes on for me.

Anyone agree?


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

I have no problem with adverbs for the most part - unless they are overused as in th case you suggested, I suppose. However I find this strict "never use adverbs ever" attitude preached by so many writing books pretty unacceptable. Sure, there are cases where it's being overused, but I find it not nearly as offensive when used in good measure. Let's face it, there is a reason why our language provides for adverbs.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Guido Henkel said:


> However I find this strict "never use adverbs ever" attitude preached by so many writing books pretty unacceptable. Sure, there are cases where it's being overused, but I find it not nearly as offensive when used in good measure. Let's face it, there is a reason why our language provides for adverbs.


Oh, I absolutely  agree. Perhaps because my most favorite author of all time is Dick Francis, who had a tendency to not only use adverbs but use complicated and even awkward ones. Without going to look I can't think of an example offhand, but think words like "swimmingly." There is a difference between "he said," and "he said drily," and I don't want to miss that difference because some author has been taught to fear adverbs.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

He laughed.  

He laughed sarcastically.

He laughed hysterically.

He laughed heartily

He laughed chillingly.

Big difference, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> He laughed.
> He laughed sarcastically.
> He laughed hysterically.
> He laughed heartily
> ...


Maniacly
Evilly
Quietly
Giddily

I agree. Sometimes they are just NEEDED.


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

I had a similar experience with a book that had three long adverbs in the first paragraph. They jumped out at me because I'm an editor but I kept reading. In the long run, I didn't finish the book, but it wasn't because of the adverbs. Like everything else—in moderation.  
L.J.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> He laughed.
> 
> He laughed sarcastically.
> 
> ...


Often, though, if you change the verb, you don't need the adverb any more.

He sniggered.

He cackled.

He guffawed.

He crowed.

Sometimes the right adverb is the most succinct way to accurately [  ] say it, and I'm fine with that most of the time: just watch out for those Tom-Swifty-sounding things.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

NogDog said:


> Often, though, if you change the verb, you don't need the adverb any more.
> 
> He sniggered.
> 
> ...


Exactly, I always wished people would be more creative than "He laughed *****ly." There are so many words out there that are more fun and can get the same point across.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Adverbs in and of themselves are not bad, however, they can be a sign of weak writing. You just have to know IF they are weak, and WHY they are weak. I like the strong verb examples you gave. This shows how you can take a weak verb propped up with an adverb, change the verb to a stronger one, and get rid of the adverb.

I blogged about adverbs not too long ago, to try to explain why adverbs need to be watched. http://victorinewrites.blogspot.com/2010/05/adverbs-are-they-that-terrible.html

That said, I do admit there are times where using an adverb is fine. Just check to make sure it's not weak.

In answer to your question, if I start to read and find a lot of weak adverbs, I do want to put the book down. It does bug me. Have I seen weak adverbs in traditionally published books? Yes. Does it still bother me? Yes.

Vicki


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

jrchase said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> New KB member here. I enjoyed the "Do typos throw you" thread below.
> 
> ...


JR--

Great question! Welcome to KindleBoards and congratulations on your first post! When you get a chance, head on over to Introductions and tell us a little bit about yourself. And be sure to check out the Book Bazaar, our board where we feature our KB author-members!

Betsy


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

I am totally an adverb junkie.


----------



## Brett P (May 17, 2010)

Well, I know I was taught to dislike adverbs as a writer and that stigma is partially staying with me.  However, I have no problem with using them sparingly, and using ones that I think of as necessary, like "slowly", "quickly", "silently" and the like.

But if there are way too many clumped together, I don't like it, no.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

"I like adverbs," he announced smugly as he walked confidently beside me, chomping annoyingly at his gum. "They're great at propping up weak things," he continued lazily. His boots stepped loudly on the ground.

"But I don't like them," I complained dryly. "Can't you just use a strong verb?" I asked confusedly. "And isn't there a tendency to overuse them?"

He laughed crazily.

"Of course," he happily said. "But you don't notice them until someone says something about them," he explained patiently. "Once you see them, you can't unsee them." I nodded energetically in agreement.

"Of course," I interjected heartily, "I've already used twelve so far, and I know of authors far worse."

"Sure you do," he pronounced hysterically. "There's readers who eat this stuff up! Eat it gleefully, I say!"

I rolled my eyes half-heartedly and walked silently beside him, deciding my point would never be made clearly.
--------


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> "I like adverbs," he announced smugly as he walked confidently beside me, chomping annoyingly at his gum. "They're great at propping up weak things," he continued lazily. His boots stepped loudly on the ground.
> 
> "But I don't like them," I complained dryly. "Can't you just use a strong verb?" I asked confusedly. "And isn't there a tendency to overuse them?"
> 
> ...


Like fingernails on a chalkboard. Thanks David. 

Vicki


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

NogDog said:


> He sniggered.
> He cackled.
> He guffawed.
> He crowed.


If an author ended every line of dialogue which similar examples, an astute reader would be equally frustrated as with a plethora of adverbs.

A rule that steadfastly stipulates the avoidance of all adverbs is itself a form of bad writing: one that attempts to distill language down into a functional process like computer code.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

I prefer authors to just use he said/she said. If they have any skill in writing dialog and creating their setting, I'll know how they said it. I mean, sheesh, give the reader some credit.

David Dalglish


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2010)

I'd sooner use two adverbs than guffawed. That's just a case of reaching too far into the thesaurus and coming up with junk.

There is an appropriate line between the two extremes. Really, there are any number of things people can be overly touchy about. I hate the phrase "the fact that" and will never use it, but would I put down a book that uses is once or several times. Probably not.

David, I just got an edit back about my 2nd book, my editor saying I went with just plain said too often. I agree that allowing the reader to infer tone and manner can be fun, but repeated words was the problem he wanted to avoid. Your thoughts?


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Geemont said:


> If an author ended every line of dialogue which similar examples, an astute reader would be equally frustrated as with a plethora of adverbs.
> 
> A rule that steadfastly stipulates the avoidance of all adverbs is itself a form of bad writing: one that attempts to distill language down into a functional process like computer code.





foreverjuly said:


> I'd sooner use two adverbs than guffawed. That's just a case of reaching too far into the thesaurus and coming up with junk.
> 
> There is an appropriate line between the two extremes. Really, there are any number of things people can be overly touchy about. I hate the phrase "the fact that" and will never use it, but would I put down a book that uses is once or several times. Probably not.
> 
> David, I just got an edit back about my 2nd book, my editor saying I went with just plain said too often. I agree that allowing the reader to infer tone and manner can be fun, but repeated words was the problem he wanted to avoid. Your thoughts?


To be honest, in my original example, I really wasn't thinking of dialogue attributions, but looking at them as short statements, and making the point about looking for the right verb first before settling for a common verb that then requires an adverb to make it "right." Now whether or not "guffawed" would ever be right is up to you as an author. As far as dialogue goes, if you write good dialogue, then any adverb in the attribution would probably be redundant.


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

I am glad, you guys seem to agree with me for the most part. For a moment I was actually afraid to post my opinion because I thought I would probably invoke everyone's wrath.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> I'd sooner use two adverbs than guffawed. That's just a case of reaching too far into the thesaurus and coming up with junk.
> 
> There is an appropriate line between the two extremes. Really, there are any number of things people can be overly touchy about. I hate the phrase "the fact that" and will never use it, but would I put down a book that uses is once or several times. Probably not.
> 
> David, I just got an edit back about my 2nd book, my editor saying I went with just plain said too often. I agree that allowing the reader to infer tone and manner can be fun, but repeated words was the problem he wanted to avoid. Your thoughts?


I'm not David, but I would not start adding in creative dialogue tags. Sure, every once in a while I don't mind "she snapped" or such, but if my editor were telling me I used "plain said" too often, I would look at getting a different editor.

Also, if you're finding too many 'he said' 'she said', take a peek at the places where a dialogue tag can be replaced with a dialogue beat. Just my two cents.

Vicki


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

I'm all with you on that Victorine. I always try to remove all he said/she said moments as good as I can. Establish the people involved in the dialog and the just let the flow of the spoken words take care of the structure itself.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> David, I just got an edit back about my 2nd book, my editor saying I went with just plain said too often. I agree that allowing the reader to infer tone and manner can be fun, but repeated words was the problem he wanted to avoid. Your thoughts?


I'm not David, but wanted to answer anyway  In my opinion, 'just plain said' is a problem at times where there's no indication of body language with the speech. People don't just stand still while talking. They get restless, they shrug, they wave their arms about, they clench fists, smile, grit their teeth, raise eyebrows, etc. Or they can simply 'look annoyed', for example. Have I been hanging out with Italians too much? 

BUT I think if he just wants to avoid the word 'said'... hrmmm.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2010)

nomesque said:


> I'm not David, but wanted to answer anyway  In my opinion, 'just plain said' is a problem at times where there's no indication of body language with the speech. People don't just stand still while talking. They get restless, they shrug, they wave their arms about, they clench fists, smile, grit their teeth, raise eyebrows, etc. Or they can simply 'look annoyed', for example. Have I been hanging out with Italians too much?
> 
> BUT I think if he just wants to avoid the word 'said'... hrmmm.


Thanks nomesque, and Vicki for jumping in on this question. It wasn't a big deal but something he flagged once in a while in the manuscript. He's not on a crusade against said or anything, just trying to keep the wording fresh. I think for some of those quick back and forths not having anything at all might be the best way to go sometimes. I also completely agree about the gestures, and so I do usually give some indication, depending on the situation, with a dependent clause. That's funny you mention Italians. The gesture of choice with Japanese people is teeth sucking. I've been tempted to use it when a character is hemming and hawing.


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Adverbs throw me quite a bit if they're not used sparingly. I read a book once that, line of dialogue after line of dialogue, had a "said ---ly." (Said angrily, gestured awkwardly, frowned unhappily...it was a nightmare.)


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Well I -am- David, so I will answer your question...with a question!

Was he making blanket statements about your entire novel having it too much, or was your editor pointing out a specific conversation within the book? I can imagine something like this being annoying.



> "What's up," he said.
> "Nothing," she said.
> "Doing anything later," he said.
> "No," she said.
> ...


There's plenty of other dialog tags you can use that don't get too annoying - things like asked and replied. You can also go a line or two simply skipping a dialog tag. You can also emphasize something they're doing before or after the dialog to attribute the dialog to a person without specifically using said, and even if you do use said, the text beforehand still breaks it up. I'm not a big fan of having people "guffaw" and whatnot, either. My own personal preference ends up adding in 'while' and 'as' afterward to change a pace.

"I'd reckon you should leave," he said _as he sucked on his toothpick._

Much better than:

"I'd reckon you should leave," he said _threateningly._

Just my two cents.

David Dalglish


----------



## PhillipA82 (Dec 20, 2009)

I hate adverts too


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

foreverjuly said:


> I'd sooner use two adverbs than guffawed.


Me too. I'll have to admit if I see much in the way of guffawing and crowing in a book, I know it's not my kind of writing and put it aside.


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

Words have a rhythm, a flow, and a character. Adverbs are no different; there are times when it's not only okay to use them, but necessary to the rhythm, flow, and 'feel' of a sentence.  ANY device which is over-used becomes ineffective and tiresome. Adverbs should be used sparingly, but they are the 'right' word for the job sometimes. 

Some modern writing has all the style and poetry of a jack-hammer. Short, declarative sentences. An unreasonable allergy to adverbs. An aversion to a 'storyteller' voice (narrative). I say 'to each his own'--when one listens too much to the advice of others (so-called 'rules of writing'), one risks losing unique voice. If the occasional adverb is part of that voice, well, you won't hear any criticism from me.


----------



## farrellclaire (Mar 5, 2010)

archer said:


> Words have a rhythm, a flow, and a character. Adverbs are no different; there are times when it's not only okay to use them, but necessary to the rhythm, flow, and 'feel' of a sentence. ANY device which is over-used becomes ineffective and tiresome. Adverbs should be used sparingly, but they are the 'right' word for the job sometimes.
> 
> Some modern writing has all the style and poetry of a jack-hammer. Short, declarative sentences. An unreasonable allergy to adverbs. An aversion to a 'storyteller' voice (narrative). I say 'to each his own'--when one listens too much to the advice of others (so-called 'rules of writing'), one risks losing unique voice. If the occasional adverb is part of that voice, well, you won't hear any criticism from me.


Completely agree. There's a time and a place for everything and I personally want the books I read to have a unique voice. If everyone did things the exact same way then it would become a little mundane for me. Anything can be under/over done but I think if people stay true to their own style then anything has the potential to work well.


----------



## David Wood (Feb 17, 2009)

The best advice I've heard is to make minimal use of both adverbs and dialog tags on the first draft. Then, on the second draft, try to get rid of the rest of them. There's almost always a better way to express emotion and action without resorting to an adverb or a descriptive dialog tag. On your final draft, you should have very few, and hopefully those that remain are the ones that are "right for the job" and actually add to the flow and character of your writing. (I am doubtless guilty of using too many of both in my own writing.)


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

archer said:


> Words have a rhythm, a flow, and a character. Adverbs are no different; there are times when it's not only okay to use them, but necessary to the rhythm, flow, and 'feel' of a sentence. ANY device which is over-used becomes ineffective and tiresome. Adverbs should be used sparingly, but they are the 'right' word for the job sometimes.
> 
> Some modern writing has all the style and poetry of a jack-hammer. Short, declarative sentences. An unreasonable allergy to adverbs. An aversion to a 'storyteller' voice (narrative). I say 'to each his own'--when one listens too much to the advice of others (so-called 'rules of writing'), one risks losing unique voice. If the occasional adverb is part of that voice, well, you won't hear any criticism from me.


I agree, however I have seen a lot of new writers who haven't even heard of not using adverbs. They can't use one when it's 'right', because they don't know when it's 'wrong'. This is why I shout out about adverbs, point of view, show vs. tell, and other such 'rules'. If you're going against the 'rules', that's fine, as long as you know why you're doing it. If new writers see others saying 'don't listen to the rules of writing', then they might not read any of the advice, and thus have a poorly written book in the end. That doesn't do anyone any good.

Vicki


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

The first thing I thought of when I saw this thread was Schoolhouse Rock. And Lolly Lolly Lolly just happens to be one of my favorites, 



> Ready pop?
> Yep.
> Ready son?
> Uh-huh.
> ...


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> He laughed.
> 
> He laughed sarcastically.
> 
> ...


You are quite correct. There is a huge difference in those four items. The problem with these examples is not a lack of definition, but that you are bordering on show vs. tell issues. Don't TELL me the guy was laughing hysterically, SHOW me.

_His wild laughter bordered on hysteria.

He laughed, a riotous, unbalanced sound that lasted far too long to be normal.

His raucous laughter bounced through several octaves, carrying a hint of hysteria with it._ Etc. etc.

Those are just a few off-the-cuff examples, and I admit none of them are great, but you get the idea.

The same can be said for chillingly, sarcastically (though I rather like that one), and heartily. How does a person sound when they laugh "chillingly?" What, exactly, happens? What does it sound like? How does it make the listener feel? In MOST (not all) cases, adverbs come across _to me_ as lazy writing. Having said that, when editing my own work, I find myself using them far more often than I'd like to. Like one person above me said, sometimes an adverb_ is_ the right word for the job. However, most times I feel it isn't.

Adverbs are fine. Really. As long as they are used well and SPARINGLY. (Yup, I just used an adverb!) Four adverbs in the very first paragraph of a novel would make me stop reading and put it back.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> You are quite correct. there is a huge difference in those four items. The problem with these examples is not a lack of definition, but that you are bordering on show vs. tell issues. Don't TELL me the guy was laughing hysterically, SHOW me.
> 
> _His wild laughter borded on hysteria.
> 
> ...


Well said. Very well said. I have nothing to add... just wanted to say you're brilliant.

Vicki


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Tab, based on those examples, I'm assuming the professor was trying to cut down passive writing. As in, don't write 'he was running'. Instead you write, 'he ran.' Stronger, clearer, shorter. To say to never, ever use those words is beyond idiotic, and I'm sorry you had a bad teacher ruin writing for you for so long. I lucked out and had a phenomenal creative writing teacher in high school, and my time with her was invaluable.

David Dalglish


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

Most adverbs are for the first draft. The second draft can house about half of these. By the time the final comes along, maybe 10% remain.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I think that perhaps this goes along with the old "show me, don't tell" me axiom. Adverbs seem to me to almost always be _telling_ the readers something, instead of _showing_ them.



Half-Orc said:


> Well I -am- David, so I will answer your question...with a question!
> 
> Was he making blanket statements about your entire novel having it too much, or was your editor pointing out a specific conversation within the book? I can imagine something like this being annoying.
> 
> ...


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Well said. Very well said. I have nothing to add... just wanted to say you're brilliant.
> 
> Vicki


I printed this. I plan to show it to my 15 year old daughter and say "See? SEE? I _TOLD_ you!"

Maybe she'll believe _you_.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> I printed this. I plan to show it to my 15 year old daughter and say "See? SEE? I _TOLD_ you!"
> 
> Maybe she'll believe _you_.


lol

(normally I wouldn't post something so short, but I really mean it.)


----------



## Thumper (Feb 26, 2009)

Heavy use of adverbs isn't necessarily bad writing--it's poor editing. Most writers use them liberally in the first couple of drafts, then they start picking them out on the 2nd and 3rd drafts.

Adverb hunting.








A necessary skill, methinks.

When you're writing, they serve a purpose, but they're 95% unnecessary to the reader, and if the writer has done his or her job well, the reader should be able to makes sense of how a character is speaking or moving or whatever. When I see an overuse of adverbs, I see a writer unsure of being able to write true characters (whether I'm right or not...it's what I see...)

Still... _They serve a purpose, she said tentatively..._


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Most problem writing, IMHO, comes from people trying to avoid something else.  The main thing is to recognize when you are using the same pattern or feel over and over again.  

If you try to avoid using adverbs, and choose instead to use stronger verbs, you run the risk of Tom Swifties.  That's when you stretch too far for different verbs and start getting ridiculous.  (In Tom Swift, the verbs were often also puns, which made it worse.  "It's a bomb!" he exploded.)

No matter what you do, it will be bad if it is repetitive.  (Except in rare cases where the repetition is for an intentional effect.)  Watch for a better way to say it.  Plainer tends to be better, so the first question is "does this really add anything to the meaning, or is it just a crutch because I'm not sure the audience will get it?"  Then think through your options.  For dialog tags, you can get it across by how you phrase the dialog, you can add an adverb.  You can use a more precise verb.  Or you can add some "business" (action or expression on the part of the character).

You can even add a reaction on the part of the character who is listening.  If the character is thoughtful and paying close attention, his or her reaction in thought or action may be very effective - or not.  I just depends.

Every method is bad when overused.  Adverbs tend to be easy, so people use them more - but that doesn't make them worse, just more common.

Camille


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

Thumper said:


> Heavy use of adverbs isn't necessarily bad writing--it's poor editing. Most writers use them liberally in the first couple of drafts, then they start picking them out on the 2nd and 3rd drafts.


Editors vary. I've had editors who will barely stand for an adverb in the manuscript...then when i got used to that I end up working with a new editor who wants me to be a "little freer" with my adverbs. Same thing with passive voice. Argh!


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

D. Nathan Hilliard said:


> Editors vary. I've had editors who will barely stand for an adverb in the manuscript...then when i got used to that I end up working with a new editor who wants me to be a "little freer" with my adverbs. Same thing with passive voice. Argh!


I took that reference to "editing" as mainly being the author's own editing of his/her revisions.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

That's the spirit!


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Just curious...when did the whole "Never use adverbs" rule begin? Was it in Stephen King's "On Writing" or before?

(King still uses many, by the way.)

Some people are so opposed it's a bit of a scare. What made me smirk the most was how many adverbs were sprinkled throughout all the replies.

I try to avoid them, but admit to letting some through.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

David McAfee's got it straight, IMO. You can't declare a blanket war on all adverbs, but they can be overused and used badly and used well.

The advice to "add punch" to your dialogue with substitutes for "said" usually results in labored and terrible writing.

I believe you have to develop an ear for good writing as you develop an ear for good music. Not everyone will agree on what is "good," but a general consensus seems to develop nonetheless.

Love the Tom Swifties! 

"Go to the back of the boat," Tom said sternly.
"Alas, I have no flowers," Tom said lackadaisically.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Dave Dykema said:


> Just curious...when did the whole "Never use adverbs" rule begin? Was it in Stephen King's "On Writing" or before?


Way before Stephen King. Check out other How To books, you'll see them say adverbs should be watched.

And of course we all use them. It's just important to know when it's better to cut them. Sometimes it's not better to cut them. Many times it is. If you've never learned when it's best to cut, your writing (or editing) will reflect that.

Vicki


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

archer said:


> Words have a rhythm, a flow, and a character. Adverbs are no different; there are times when it's not only okay to use them, but necessary to the rhythm, flow, and 'feel' of a sentence. ANY device which is over-used becomes ineffective and tiresome. Adverbs should be used sparingly, but they are the 'right' word for the job sometimes.
> 
> Some modern writing has all the style and poetry of a jack-hammer. Short, declarative sentences. An unreasonable allergy to adverbs. An aversion to a 'storyteller' voice (narrative). I say 'to each his own'--when one listens too much to the advice of others (so-called 'rules of writing'), one risks losing unique voice. If the occasional adverb is part of that voice, well, you won't hear any criticism from me.


Right on. Write on. Couldn't agree more.

I recall one agent giving criticised my use of action verbs just by pointing out I used a great many of them. Wasn't sure what to take away from that one  at the time. But it was that I had used the device too often, and the prose had become too rigid. Would a general reader have minded? Probably not, but a professional did, so it was voted down.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

One theme I'm picking up from this discussion is the idea of knowing the rules enough to know when to break them.  Being a big fan of Strunk and White, I am not a big fan of adverbs, particularly (OMG, it's an adverb!) in dialogue attribution.  However, when the adverb describes some sensual aspect of the dialogue so that I "hear" it better, like the adverb quietly, I'm all for it.  Obviously (another one!  Someone get the red pen out now!) there are other ways to write "he said quietly."  I could write "he whispered" or "he hissed" or something else equally (I'm doomed, apparently) exciting.  However, one of my characters rarely (really, really doomed) whispers and he never hisses (nasty word that puts me in mind of snakes or geese or mad cats), but he does have the quiet kind of voice that carries.  When he says something quietly, that's a cue for everyone to listen.

I think these writing teachers who say never do this and never do that are just plain ridiculous.  Writing is not a black and white discipline (even if it prints that way on the page.)  It's an art form and thus comes in shades and tints of gray, sometimes even wild and crazy technicolor.


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

'I think I'll raise a little Cain,' said Adam evilly.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Dave Dykema said:


> Just curious...when did the whole "Never use adverbs" rule begin? Was it in Stephen King's "On Writing" or before?
> 
> (King still uses many, by the way.)
> 
> ...


I suppose it started with Hemingway and authors of that era. The idea of cleaner, more "muscular" prose was a reaction to earlier writing where the emphasis was on long, lush passages that were more about being literate than anything else.

It is possible to be too spare, but generally, no matter what style we're going for, we tend to use more words than we need on the first try.

Camille


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

St


archer said:


> 'I think I'll raise a little Cain,' said Adam evilly.


LOL! That's one of the best Swifties I've read!

I think the no adverb thing started with Strunk and White's _The Elements of Style_, which I believe King alludes to in the toolbox section of _On Writing _

Strunk and White didn't like adverbs (and forgive me, I'm too lazy at the moment to go get my copy of _The Elements of Style_) because of adverb overuse in works like the Tom Swift adventure series. Strunk and White used "tangledly" as an example of a really wicked adverb, stating that "the word tangledly itself is a tangle" or something like that. It made me laugh, so I remember it best of all their examples.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Great stuff here! Half-Orc’s adverb-laden vignettes are “hilariously” (as more advanced students here in Japan might say).

Speaking of which, my less advanced students very like to say “I very like!”

What ignorance! What gross misuse of adverbs!

But wait a minute. Is very even an adverb? My dictionary says it is. But "very" doesn’t seem to be adding to the verb. Now “really” in place of “very” would add to the verb (though it would be nice to tack on an object).

Among the many secrets into the mysteries of English that I give my students is this. No one really knows what an adverb is. I tell them, if it ends with –ly and it’s not an adjective, it’s likely an adverb. Those “adverbs” are clear. Most of the others, though, are homeless words that are thrown into the adverb family because grammarians didn’t know what else to do with them. That’s what I tell my students, anyway.

Many homeless words might be called ad-adjectives or ad-sentences or even ad-adverbs but I don’t see why they should be called adverbs. If you’re taking a test and you have a word and you don’t know what to call it, call it an adverb. You’ll probably be right. That’s what I tell my students.

But what I intended to say was none of that. Just wanted to express a bit of surprise. This rule about not using adverbs is a new one to me. I admit, though, it does make some sense. But what about some other rules? Like those against splitting infinitives, using ‘who’ for objects, ending sentences with prepositions, and writing “a history”? Does proscribing any of those make sense?

(Ok, I admit. I’ve completely gotten off onto a different topic. So I’ll leave it at that and go start a new thread titled: Do “Whom” and Other Subtleties of the English Language Throw You?)

Mark Ledbetter

America’s Forgotten History. Part One: Foundations
America’s Forgotten History. Part Two: Rupture
Globocop: How America Sold Its Soul and Lost Its Way

(Though I’ve tried, I still can’t post the pics or the links. Anyone interested in cheap Kindle history, though, try the book or author title. Cheers!)


----------



## libbyfh (Feb 11, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Like he said.
> I'm with NogDog too... I'll go back over my mss to "search and destroy" any "ly" words.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> But what I intended to say was none of that. Just wanted to express a bit of surprise. This rule about not using adverbs is a new one to me. I admit, though, it does make some sense. But what about some other rules?


There are rules for grammar and the English Language, and then there are rules or guidelines for tightening up your novel. Novel writing is a different animal than teaching the rules of English and Grammar. You can have all of the knowledge of the rules of grammar, and still write a book full of passive language, telling instead of showing, and point of view problems. Adverbs should be watched, but knowing why is more important than just going through your manuscript and deleting all adverbs. Knowing why will help you be a better writer.

Here's my blog post on it: http://victorinewrites.blogspot.com/2010/05/adverbs-are-they-that-terrible.html

And this is just my opinion. I am kind of an adverb Nazi though. (But I do admit you don't have to kill all adverbs. Just be aware and use them wisely.)

Vicki


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

I just read your blog post, Victorine, and found I agreed with everything in it. Very good explanation.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Dave Dykema said:


> I just read your blog post, Victorine, and found I agreed with everything in it. Very good explanation.


Thanks Dave! I try not to preach about it too much.

Well, okay, I preach about it too much. 

Vicki


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

"I preach about it too much," she said theologically.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Dave Dykema said:


> "I preach about it too much," she said theologically.










Good one!


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

archer said:


> 'I think I'll raise a little Cain,' said Adam evilly.


Oh this is rich!!


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Suddenly, D.A. Boulter enters the fray.

Just 'cause I'm a contrarian, I gots ta say that not only does adverbs has their place, but it's a good place and they's good words.  So there.

I agree that often you can find a replacement for, say, 'said quietly'.  But often it is the best choice.  And, no, your writing, if good, does not always show the reader the way in which it was said, thus being able to stand in for this handsome, loving, adverb.  A whisper is very different to a 'said quietly'.  So is a mutter--an entirely other connotation.  The humble adverb has an especially important place when the manner of speaking is at odds with the action.

You can have two (or more) persons in a very angry conversation, shouting or practically shouting at each other, then one says, quietly, "I'll kill him."  Yes, you could take an extra ten or twenty words to describe this character moving rapidly from the angry shouting phase to the serious intention of inflicting bodily harm.  By the time you accomplish this, however, you've lost the shocking value that a single word, your humble adverb, would have.

And as for running.  I've seen people running quickly and I've seen people running slowly.  That's how they run.  I, for one, can no longer run quickly.  That doesn't mean I'm jogging, meandering or doing anything other than running--perhaps full out.  Only my running full out isn't the same as it used to be, nor what my boss's son, a twenty-five year old who plays soccer, would even consider running.  I ain't lumbering, either.  I'm not big enough to lumber.  I'm running, but not quickly.

Running quickly is not a redundancy.  

"I'll kill him," he said quietly.  

Quietly.  One word and you have it.  It paints a whole scene.  Or you could say:

With no expression on his face and with a calm voice, in stark juxtaposition to the volume and intensity of the argument which raged around him, he said: "I'll kill him."

I'll take the 'quietly' the majority of the time.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

> "I'll kill him," he said quietly.


One problem with that, though, is this is how I might hear it in my head while reading:

*Sarah yelled at Bill, "Stop hitting him! It's not his fault!"

Bill turned on her, the whites showing all around his eyes. "What do you mean it's not his fault, you stupid *****?"

"Don't you dare call me a *****, you *******! You don't what's going on. I...I asked him to come over to help me, and...well..."

"I'll kill him,"* he said quietly.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

You can always turn it around:

He quietly said, "I'll kill him." 

But I know what you mean.  I'll be reading something (aloud or to myself) and do just as you described.  Still, one word does the work of many.

PS: Although we may read as you described, that's not always a bad thing either.  You're stopped suddenly and the change in volume seems more intense for your having to go back and reread the sentence in the 'proper tone'.  Just like the argument might continue to rage until the words suddenly click with someone else.

"You'll what?"


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

D.A. Boulter said:


> You can always turn it around:
> 
> He quietly said, "I'll kill him."
> 
> But I know what you mean. I'll be reading something aloud and do just as you described. Still, one word does the work of many.


I agree on that point, sometimes it works fine to use the adverb, especially when people say things or do things in a way opposite from what you would think. However, I don't think you need "quickly" when you say he ran. We all know what running is. Just my opinion though. Use them if you want. 

Vicki


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

And, in general, I agree with you, too. But although we all know what running is, every one does it in a _somewhat different style_ -- he says, thereby avoiding the adverb.

And saying [Olympic gold medalist] "Usain Bolt ran across the street to save the child." conjures up something entirely different than [Out of shape, 53 year-old] "Doug Boulter ran across the street to save the child." I'd prefer to be the child that Usain Bolt attempts to save.

Too many adverbs spoil the word stew. Yet I loves them for what they is. It is, as in all other fields, a matter of taste. I'm not necessarily right and you're not necessarily wrong, he says graciously. [sorry, couldn't help it.]


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Too many adverbs spoil the word stew. Yet I loves them for what they is. It is, as in all other fields, a matter of taste. I'm not necessarily right and you're not necessarily wrong, he says graciously. [sorry, couldn't help it.]


*wink* *wink*

I _actually_ use them more than I should too. When they're our words, it's much harder to kill them than when they're other people's words. That's why Stephen King suggests you put your first draft manuscript away for 6 weeks before going through it to edit. It distances you from it, making it seem like someone else wrote it, and thus much easier to kill your darlings. Great advice, IMHO.  It also helps to join a critique group, they're not afraid to kill your darlings. Some of them delight in it! LOL!

Vicki


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2010)

I hate to say it, but I've known some people who don't know what running is.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Of course, you could look for that wonderful simile or metaphor that can make reading so enjoyable, instead of simply appending an adverb.

_He ran across the street like a member of Steve Jobs's robot army trying to be first in line for the next iDevice._


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

NogDog said:


> Of course, you could look for that wonderful simile or metaphor that can make reading so enjoyable, instead of simply appending an adverb.
> 
> _He ran across the street like a member of Steve Jobs's robot army trying to be first in line for the next iDevice._


Brilliant. Love it. 

Vicki


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

NogDog said:


> Of course, you could look for that wonderful simile or metaphor that can make reading so enjoyable, instead of simply appending an adverb.
> 
> _He ran across the street like a member of Steve Jobs's robot army trying to be first in line for the next iDevice._


Well, actually, that simile is an adverbial clause. So, you're saying that adverbial clauses are okay, but the simple adverb is to be shunned? This is clearly a case of the rights of the individual being abrogated by the crowd. A clear case of prejudice--if I might use a sentence fragment. And, quite possibly, apartheid. The rights of the poor adverb are threatened. My lawyers will triumphantly tout this in front of a civil rights court, in front of the Supreme Court, and in the court of writerly opinion.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Well, actually, that simile is an adverbial clause. So, you're saying that adverbial clauses are okay, but the simple adverb is to be shunned? This is clearly a case of the rights of the individual being abrogated by the crowd. A clear case of prejudice--if I might use a sentence fragment. And, quite possibly, apartheid. The rights of the poor adverb are threatened. My lawyers will triumphantly tout this in front of a civil rights court, in front of the Supreme Court, and in the court of writerly opinion.


I'm just saying, never settle for the easy solution just because it's easy. _Sometimes_ it's the right solution, sometimes it is not; and it also will depend on your style and your target audience. As a reader, I love reading Roger Zelazny and his incredibly creative imagery full of unexpected metaphors and similes, while I could barely get myself through the first couple chapters of the much more popular _Pillars of the Earth_ by Ken Follett (sp?), whose first chapter I skimmed through a second time and did not find a single simile or metaphor, which probably explains part of why I found it so difficult to get involved with it. (The characters played a big part, too.)

No language "rules" are sacrosanct, and even the most widely accepted of them can be broken when breaking them simply "works," but I think such rules are good flags to look at during your revisions to see if there is a better way than the first that had come to mind.

Believe me, I don't sit there counting adverbs while reading, and most of the time would not specifically notice them unless an author starts wandering into Tom Swifty land, but I do tend to generally notice that something is missing, dull, or otherwise wrong when they get overused in place of all the other techniques that can make the writing more involving.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

NogDog said:


> Believe me, I don't sit there counting adverbs while reading, and most of the time would not specifically notice them unless an author starts wandering into Tom Swifty land, but I do tend to generally notice that something is missing, dull, or otherwise wrong when they get overused in place of all the other techniques that can make the writing more involving.


Bingo!


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Oh, I count adverbs... 26... 27... 28... sheesh there are so many!  oh, wait.  That's my work in progress.  *blush*

Never mind.

Vicki


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2010)

Imogen Rose said:


> I am totally an adverb junkie.


That's refreshing!

I've read all the advice about taking an axe to the adverbs, and quite often it's the right thing to do. Recently, however, I've been languidly reading some old sword & sorcery classics, noting amusedly, the over-abundance of adverbs and multiple adjectives and enjoying myself immensely.

Robert E. Howard, for instance, has his sullen sanguine hero speak broodingly and tardily to the foul villain with the cavernous eyes glinting malignantly from beneath heavy, stony, satanic brows as he smites heartily and mightily with his sullen (again) sombre and saturnine sword.

Lots of repetition, breaks all the modern rules, but does what it sets out to in terms of atmosphere.

If, however, a writer is lazy and uses "ran very quickly" instead of "sprinted" I might get a bit grumpy.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

derekprior said:


> That's refreshing!
> 
> I've read all the advice about taking an axe to the adverbs, and quite often it's the right thing to do. Recently, however, I've been languidly reading some old sword & sorcery classics, noting amusedly, the over-abundance of adverbs and multiple adjectives and enjoying myself immensely.
> 
> ...


Heh. I guess it's not the size of the adverb, it's how you use it. *snort* I kill me.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

I looked through this entire thread, trying to find *my* problem with adverbs. I'm increasingly annoyed by phrases that leave the adverb but drop the -ly. For example:

"I ran there quick."

Is it a plot to avoid an editor's adverb filters? This seems especially common in spoken language.

(How would you "fix" my adverbs above? )


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Malweth said:


> I looked through this entire thread, trying to find *my* problem with adverbs. I'm increasingly annoyed by phrases that leave the adverb but drop the -ly. For example:
> 
> "I ran there quick."
> 
> ...


Well, I definitely wouldn't advise anyone to drop the 'ly' to get rid of the adverb. "I ran there quick" is a terrible sentence. Running in itself implies that you're doing it quickly. So I would say "I ran" is much better than "I ran there quick".

As for especially common... that's not terrible, but it is a bit redundant. 

Vicki


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Editors and English teachers are fighting furiously against the disappearing -ly. A losing battle? I ran fastly is history. The US Government, to the consternation of the above-mentioned protectors of the language, post signs that say Go Slow!


----------

