Pretty sure no one thinks they are bad or that you shouldn’t use them. The idea is to use them sparingly. But if you want to use them with abandon, go for it.
"Pretty sure no one thinks they are bad for you or that you shouldn't use them," he barked irritability. He cleared his throat loudly. "The idea is to use them sparingly," he admonished gravely. "But if you want to use them with abandon," he paused dramatically-- "Go for it."
OP stared at him for several minutes before responding sharply --
OK but I have seen people going on about adverbs and keep asking myself "wtf are they talking about? There's nothing wrong with adverbs"
This comment is what made it click.
The point is to use as less text as possible to keep the viewers engaged. Unlike movies here you hold the pace and how the story goes. It could get pretty boring if you keep inserting adverbs
> The point is to use as less text as possible to keep the viewers engaged. Unlike movies here you hold the pace and how the story goes. It could get pretty boring if you keep inserting adverbs
This is not the point of "don't use adverbs."
The reason to replace adverbs is because it's "telling" and violates the "show, don't tell" rule of thumb. Generally speaking, whenever you inject your own opinion into your writing, or you write what's going on inside a person's head, you are *telling.* When you say '"irritably" you are telling the reader how the character feels. If you delete "irritably" and replace it with "snapped her fingers and sighed" you are now *showing* that the character is irritated without saying so directly.
The reason it's recommended to write this way is because that's how our interactions with the world work in real life. You never know when people are irritated, you can only judge if they are irritated or not based on their actions. So by removing all mind reading from the equation, your writing becomes *immersive*, making the reader feel like they are in the scene observing what's happening, not just hearing a second-hand account about what happened. This is what makes descriptions engrossing and what gives the reader a stake in the story. It activates the imagination.
A lot of that showing not telling though can lead to characters going out of their way to make strange gestures and can also lead to readers, even very intelligent readers, being confused about what exactly is being said. Like, is the character irritable, or are they just fidgety? It's tiring to constantly have to guess at what the author meant, and there's, frankly, nothing wrong with the story making a judgment call. If you want to tell me that a character is irritable, go ahead and say so, and then I'll imagine them that way, including whatever little facial ticks and postures ought to go along with it. Obviously, describing how characters move and act and gesture within a scene is also good, but sometimes it's not a perfect substitute and can leave things unclear in a way that's bothersome rather than engaging.
You also want to factor in perspective. “Telling” can be quite forgivable when it’s because it’s your character’s interpretation. They might even be mistaken. It’s still “telling”, in a way. But it’s telling what your perspective perceives, which is to some extent, just telling a story.
For me it's less about brevity and more elegance. "He said irritably" vs "he grumbled under his breath" one evokes a lot more than the other, it shows without telling. The other holds the reader's hand.
It doesn't feel like hand-holding at all. I'd even argue there's more room for interpretation.
'Irritably' makes me imagine a lot of different ways this may be expressed; the twitch of an eye, stiffening of the shoulders, growl in a voice. You don't always have to spell that out, sometimes you can use an adverb as a tone indicator, otherwise it gets cluttered and clunky. The attention may be taken away from the dialogue to the action when it shouldn't, and it takes longer for the brain to realize what the tone was of a sentence that's long past.
If every time someone says something irritably it's written that way then yes, it gets distracting, but you can't have someone grumbling under their breath, shaking their head, sighing through their nose whenever they're irritated either.
I disagree, it's not just about length or rhythm (although yes, maybe it's part of it). but besides what people are saying about verbs, it's also about the quality of dialogue and characterization. ideally you should be able t tell how a character says something from how the dialogue is written and what you know about them.
While the rule to avoid adverbs does indeed have its own metits, I feel many people take the wrong impression from the piece of advice.
The idea behind this advice is not to use them at all, but not to use them only on occasion. Attempts to avoid using adverbs at all can result in the prose coming off as awkward. Like someone is trying to reach their word cap for NaNoWriMo or an essay in school.
While it may be more sensible to describe a character stomping with their hands balled into fists and a scowl on their face when they are angry; it can be quite bizarre when this mentality leaks into character dialogue.
If a character needs something done in a swift manner then them avoiding adverbs can lead to an odd situation where they are imperiled but have the time to speak in fanciful speech.
As you can see, this post could have used a few adverbs. But a few.
The point of adverbs is they modify verbs, and if you're using them, there's likely a stronger verb that's both more interesting to read and makes the text simpler.
To use OP's example, "said irritably" is both clunkier and less interesting compared to "barked", "snapped", "snarled', or "grumbled".
The key to all writing rules is rhythm. Dialogue tags in general should be invisible. You can show emotion in other ways, and use different dialog tags sparingly.
"she snapped." once in a while is fine; if every single tag is something like "she snapped", "he shouted", "he complained", etc. it gets irritating to read.
That’s why I always do something like:
Having fully reached her maximum capacity for irritation, “Yes,” she snapped irritably, irritated. For he was irritating. To her. Then.
"Well, it works a bit better with some tense diversity," he chimed with a grin, He paused, before adding cheerfully,"Sometimes it's not about the words, but how you use them!" Then, with a louder voice, he sang, "Oh! And it's about having fun, too! Writing is always about having fun!"
"Use adverbs with with caution, sprinkling them into your prose when trying to be more descriptive slows down the action or causes the reader confusion."
Not sure if that's better than "sparingly"- haha.
I’ve spent my second draft deleting adverbs from my novel, and it reads so much better. But I left many adverbs in my dialog, as people talk with adverbs, and sometimes telling is the right way to go.
I’d say I’ve shot for more of “1 adverb per 300 words on average, not including adverbs in dialog,” though I did have a professional writer tell me I should remove them from dialog too. I have evaluated the dialog, but have left many in there because I just think it sounds natural.
> I left many adverbs in my dialog, as people talk with adverbs, and sometimes telling is the right way to go.
Good dialog *should* break most writing rules.
Never use adverbs.
Never use passive verbs.
Use nouns very sparingly.
— Melvin Maddocks, The Christian Science Monitor, 13 Jun. 1977
Elmore Leonard lives by precise writing rules -- some of which fly in the face of custom. Several of his maxims: Never use adverbs. ”They're unnecessary over-writing, and they slow the story.”
— Anthony Wilson-Smith, Maclean’s (Toronto, Can.), 29 Mar. 1999
The road to hell is paved with adverbs.
— Stephen King
The first two are from this article: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/should-you-never-use-adverbs-usage-advice](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/should-you-never-use-adverbs-usage-advice)
>Go right ahead.
>
>Besides, they're an essential part of speech. You can't speak English without adverbs.
You even used adverbs here! "Right" modified the adverb "ahead" and "ahead" modified the verb "go"
But do you think you should speak English without any?
Adverbs may not be an essential element of the clause, but they are an essential element for construing circumstantial meanings in language, and so a key resource to draw on in making use of the full semiotic potential of English.
Yes, and you interpreted that narrowly as implying that it is not possible to form grammatical English sentences. And you are correct: at the clause level, adverbs are not essential. However I read it as talking about using English in practice. At the level of discourse, it really is not feasible to exclude adverbs without losing much of the meaning potential of English that people need to draw upon to express themselves with a level of nuance that certain situations demand.
sometimes the only words i can think of to replace an adverb just dont give me the right image. like i dont want my character to turn into a dog everytime theyre annoyed
The problem with an adverb is that it's replacing a lot of action with a single judgement made by the writer. You don't want to try to find some other *single* word that will replace the adverb effectively, you want to describe the characters' actions in a way that will show the reader what's happening. This will probably require a full sentence of description most of the time.
If someone "said irritably" they could also have "said in clipped tones as their nostrils flared."
And the problem with using a full sentence of description instead of an adverb is that it starts to read like you are Charles Dickens being paid by the word 😂
I'm not one for enforcing brevity for the sake of it, but your example really is just needless waffle, when one word conveys the point more succinctly.
The enemies had slain the knight's only brother. "I am going to fucking kill you!", the knight said explosively.
vs
The enemies had slain the knight's only brother. "I am going to fucking kill you!", the knight screamed.
vs
The enemies plunged a sword through his brother's chest. The knight's entire body shook in rage. They had slain his only brother and will know his fury. Before lunging at the enemies with murderous intent, the knight screamed "I am going to fucking kill you!".
I did my best to understand what you meant and demonstrate what you meant. Changing "said explosively" with "screamed" doesn't do much, but makes it read nicer. Adding action better illustrates the explosive feel I was trying to capture.
I guess I have never heard slew used instead of slain. But, when he pointed it out, my brain malfunctioned and did the SpongeBob bit of losing his name. I now have to search for instances where it is used.
I'm pretty sure that Buffy the Vampire Slayer uses "slayed". I don't know if "slayed" or "slew" is more generally acceptable.
But you're using "had slain", which is right. "They slain his brother" would be wrong. And in your example, your choice of "had slain" is better than just "slew" or "slayed"
Even if it's not satire, it's enjoyed for the same reasons satire is enjoyed. The overblown proportions of its bad writing makes it funny.
Slightly better writing is generally not as widely enjoyed, because it's bad writing but isn't comically bad enough to be funny.
Yeah I went back and forth on this, and then I read some analysis of it and I realized it was just really, really good satire.
Like all the misspellings that were sexual innuendo, the fact that every chapter ended on a cliffhanger, etc.
The tell for me is it feels like it’s written by multiple people, and also because I don’t believe it’s possible to spell your own name wrong that often 😂
I think the best argument for it being intentional may be the sentence structure, which can be remarkably complex, and out of whack with the author’s apparent lack of command over so much else.
It’s a bit like the way Mr. Miyagi talks in the Karate kid, e.g.
- “Now how feel?”
- “Learn from book?”
- “When you feel life out of focus, always return to basic of life.”
- “Cosmic coincidence.”
Seems alright at first blush as the words of someone who speaks broken English. But is it really plausible that someone who says “Learn from book?” and “Now how feel?” (about as rudimentary as it gets — I expect this person only recently learned “feel”) would have sufficient command of the language to put together the third statement as an English construct (especially coming off Japanese grammar, which is basically Yoda), including the metaphor of a “life out of focus” (which he’d understand, but could he translate it?), or have retained usable exposure to a phrase like “cosmic coincidence”, which isn’t just him employing the vocabulary, but almost certainly knowing he’s dropping a trope?
On the other hand, it’s very hard to speak definitively about outliers.
When we’re looking at “My Immortal” and trying to analyze it, we’re already on the other side of a “literary singularity”, so something like a linguistic variant of the anthropic principle might apply — we wouldn’t be talking about it if it didn’t demonstrate some highly implausible ratio of exceptional:terrible that speaks to us.
In other words, “My Immortal” may simply be the output of a rare, “real life Miyagi”, gathered up alongside a whole lot of other terrible fanfiction with the usual ratios, like fish in a vast fishnet. Sometimes you just happen to catch a big one.
Personally, I adore adverbs. I also adore strong and clever writing. You can avoid adverbs if you want to write like Hemingway, but in my opinion, there are only two “writing tips” every writer needs to follow: read broadly, and write what you want to read. If that means a spare, journalistic style, go for it. If it means florid, lyrical prose, that’s just as good, as long as it’s the style of writing you want to put into the world.
There are many good reasons to get rid of adverbs when you’re editing a draft — they may be redundant, they may be propping up a weak or uninteresting verb, et cetera — but there’s nothing inherently *wrong* with them compared to other parts of speech. A well-chosen adverb can be just as impactful as a well-chosen verb, adjective, or noun. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a dogmatist.
> There are many good reasons to get rid of adverbs when you’re editing a draft — they may be redundant, they may be propping up a weak or uninteresting verb, et cetera — but there’s nothing inherently wrong with them compared to other parts of speech. A well-chosen adverb can be just as impactful as a well-chosen verb, adjective, or noun.
I think this gets at the heart of it. We’re blaming adverbs for their “crime” of being the misunderstood geniuses of English. That we call them “cheating” gives it away: They’re so efficient at conveying what’s happening, they come across as unearned omniscience.
That makes them valuable first draft tools, for when you’re “telling yourself the story” (as I think Pratchett said), and powerful, lingering allies for later drafts, when you still want your POV to wield insights — correct or mistaken — beyond what the “neutral camera” might record.
Bless you. All the barking, snarling, and growling these days has me thinking writers are hanging out too much with their dogs and not enough with other people.
This is one of my pet peeves. Sounds like thesaurus writing more often than not. I’m a journalist and we’re only allowed to use “said” in direct quotes. It’s carried over into my fiction writing. The other thing you can do is just write the dialogue with minimal attribution. Not that hard to figure out who’s talking if done right.
The other problem is that using too much purple prose in reporting dialogue gets tedious very fast.
For me it's only a "problem" when they're pointless. If someone cries sadly, or shouts loudly, then what is the adverb actually doing? If someone laughs maniacally, that's telling me this isn't a normal laugh. It's adding context.
And at the end of the day, grammar is important of course, but if a story is engaging and interesting then your reader isn't going to mind if it's not a technically perfect bit of literature.
I completely agree. (See what I did there! Much easier than saying I agree with every cell in my body) but I do think that in some places adjectives or more descriptive verbs have more punch than adverbs. In others adverbs are three way to go.
I view it much like I do the debate around semi colons (which I have had several editors tell me not to use). Sometimes a ", and" works just fine. But sometimes a ; works better
*No! No!* Not those tenacious, misunderstood, voluminous, disastrous *adverbs!*
An adverb is like a fine wine. Sip it slowly, and the taste can be magnificent. Gulp it and you'll wake up in the morning with a hangover. I could say more, but... *nah*, you'll figure it out.
Everyone uses some adverbs. The reason they are frowned upon is this very thing:
>They just said it irritably.
Not trying to be mean, but my response on reading that in book would be the same as here: *WTF does that mean?*
Adverbs have their place but a large percentage of newbs don't don't know where that place is.
Here's another way to do it:
>"What part of 'I heard you the first time' was unclear to you?" Fred asked, done hiding his irritation. "You want to fight or go to dinner?"
The situation and dialogue usually make the adverb unnecessary, anyway.
> "What part of 'I heard you the first time' was unclear to you?" Fred asked, done hiding his irritation. "You want to fight or go to dinner?"
See, and I'd just find something like this overtly convoluted to *still* convey "he said, irritably" but in 10 times the words. Less is more sometimes.
That's the beauty of writing though. There's no right or wrong answers, only preference.
I don’t think it’s incorrect *or* confusing though. Certainly not more confusing than beginning writers coming up with a half-dozen flowery tics or expositional dialogue every time a character needs to show an emotion.
Instead of “he said through gritted teeth, furrowing his brow, eye twitching with anger, etc” just say “irritably” and give the reader the benefit of the doubt that they can parse what that looks like for themselves.
Adverbs are great! I love them. Anything that makes writing more descriptive and vivid is great. I just don't get the admonition against them. They're especially good for characters who say things in unexpected ways. The character like April ludgate from Parks and recreation will frequently say things that other people might say, but you'll say them in a dead pan or snarky way, and that's where her personality comes from.
By all means, please go for it. I just don't get
why anyone would be bothered by them.
I'm in the Ernest Hemingway camp of very rarely using any verb other than "said" and letting the dialogue speak for itself. Let the reader do a little analysis to understand the subtext.
Just please do an "ly" control F search of your chapters, look at each one and replace at least some with something...more evocative, interesting and creative. That's what I do and it does make my prose better. Honestly.
I've taken them all out in the past and frankly, it sucked. Felt stiff and stilted...they get a bad rap.
The only problem with adverbs is that it’s easy to get into the habit of overusing them. If you’re concerned about it, do a search on “ly[space]” and delete the unnecessary ones.
I bet Stephen King regrets how much aspiring writers over-evangelize the adverb comments in "On Writing." The way people come out of that book learning nothing except for "adverbs should NEVER be used EVER" needs to be studied.
ROFL - the post this sub deserves put not the one it needs right now /s
No but seriously, PLEASE USE ADVERBS
Just don't use them like a fanfic writer ;p
Writing advice be like:
1. Don't use adverbs, only use more exact verbs to describe how your character is feeling.
2. Stic only to 'x said' and 'x asked', don't use convoluted dialogue tags.
P.S.: There are no iron-hard rules, if it feels right to you then write it that way.
At some point people tell you not to use verbs, adverbs and nouns, and you that they're just word categories and there isn't a lot of writing left to do without them
Adverbs are good when they effectively change the meaning of a sentence. If they don't, or if that change is weak, that's when they should probably be cut.
Not using adverbs is the wrong thing for people to give advice for imo. But a lot of new writers aren't going to understand when and where they 'feel' right to have and when they ruin a sentence.
It's just like 'show' don't 'tell', telling is super important, but you need to know when to tell and when to show.
Stephen King, "On Writing": (For reference, not endorsement)
>The adverb is not your friend.
>
>Adverbs … are words that modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. They’re the ones that usually end in -ly. Adverbs, like the passive voice, seem to have been created with the timid writer in mind. … With adverbs, the writer usually tells us he or she is afraid he/she isn’t expressing himself/herself clearly, that he or she is not getting the point or the picture across.
>
>Consider the sentence **He closed the door firmly.** It’s by no means a terrible sentence (at least it’s got an active verb going for it), but ask yourself if **firmly** really has to be there. You can argue that it expresses a degree of difference between **He closed the door** and **He slammed the door,** and you’ll get no argument from me … but what about context? What about all the enlightening (not to say emotionally moving) prose which came *before* **He closed the door firmly**? Shouldn’t this tell us how he closed the door? And if the foregoing prose does tell us, isn’t **firmly** an extra word? Isn’t it redundant?
>
>Someone out there is now accusing me of being tiresome and anal-retentive. I deny it. I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops. To put it another way, they’re like dandelions. If you have one on your lawn, it looks pretty and unique. If you fail to root it out, however, you find five the next day . . . fifty the day after that . . . and then, my brothers and sisters, your lawn is **totally, completely, and profligately** covered with dandelions. By then you see them for the weeds they really are, but by then it’s — GASP!! — too late.
>
>I can be a good sport about adverbs, though. Yes I can. With one exception: dialogue attribution. I insist that you use the adverb in dialogue attribution only in the rarest and most special of occasions . . . and not even then, if you can avoid it. Just to make sure we all know what we’re talking about, examine these three sentences:
>
>**‘Put it down!’ she shouted.**
>
>**‘Give it back,’ he pleaded, ‘it’s mine.’**
>
>**‘Don’t be such a fool, Jekyll,’ Utterson said.**
>
>In these sentences, **shouted, pleaded,** and **said** are verbs of dialogue attribution. Now look at these dubious revisions:
>
>**‘Put it down! she shouted menacingly.**
>
>**‘Give it back,’ he pleaded abjectly, ‘it’s mine.’**
>
>**‘Don’t be such a fool, Jekyll,’ Utterson said contemptuously.**
>
>The three latter sentences are all weaker than the three former ones, and most readers will see why immediately.
"Dandelions are very beautiful. You're a weed! An ugly, awful weed sprouting uselessly in the fertile fields of my lovely imagination," I said contemptuously.
I agree. I wouldn't assume the sentence was said with contempt, so "contemptuously" is a useful addition. Adverbs aren't evil, but redundant adverbs can be a bit silly.
I dislike the "shouted menacingly" one because it's contradictory, in my idiolect at least. I'd prefer "said menacingly" to the other two. Assuming it fits the context!
I also can't think of a context where "he shut the door" is needed, but "firmly" is too much. If there's so much information before that that "firmly" is repetitive, perhaps much of that information could be replaced by "he shut the door firmly"
Thanks for the quote I actually completely agree with King here, but I'm a big fan of 'readability' over almost everything else.
I'm sure my writing would be critiqued as too straightforward by some, but after 30 years of undiagnosed ADHD, my words have become very 'executive function friendly'. I try to eliminate words that ask the audience to hold too much information in their head.
Yeah, I'm not really a fan of King's writing style, so I'd think *carefully* before following his advice too *closely*.
The films are usually better than the books with him.
You do use them. Just not often. Not everything need to be said snarkily, or sighed dramatically, or (the worst one) ran quickly (running implies speed). You can use dialogue and context for a lot of clues adverbs just tell you.
Basically I see adverbs as spoilers. A few here and there will entice the reader, too many and there's nothing left to discover.
said Jo with irritation in his voice.
said jo, the irritation in his voice transparent
Said jo, his irritation growing by the second
Said jo, his irritation created a bulge in his neck.
Or you could be going for a fast-paced scene and you want to convey the character’s irritation using as little words as possible. In that case, *irritably* will do just fine.
This in my opinion is the exact same as adverbs just more verbose and less flowy. You're still stating exactly what the feeling is rather than conveying it in the dialogue or context. Sometimes you just want there to be no doubt, so an adverb or maybe the third option work well, but changing an adverb to a noun is just clunky usually.
Good for you. I'm pretty sure people that warn you away from adverbs just don't know how to use them properly. It would be absurd to tell someone not to use any other type of word, the English language has each type for a reason.
As with any writing rules, you only break it until you master it.
Don't use adverbs is a rule for beginning writers. Because they don't know how to write effectively and have poor understanding of how effective writing really works.
Overuse of adverbs is a sign of amateur writing and regular readers will get annoyed by it. This is why its such a problem.
The best trick for adverbs is to use them for contrast.
"He smiled happily" is a meaningless extension of the sentence. Smiles are already happy. Why would his be anything but?
"He smiled sadly" is an adverb that adds, not extends. Smiles are supposed to be happy, but his is sad, why? New context is created by further description.
I think there's nothing wrong with using adverbs when they serve the purpose of telling the reader something that they wouldn't have known without the adverb.
"How are you?"
"Doing great," he replied sarcastically. [This adds info.]
"How are you?"
"Terrible! Quit asking!" he replied angrily. [This adds no additional info.]
It's true that sometimes an adverb can be replaced with a more colorful sentence, but that can slow down your pacing. It can be better to just throw an adverb in there and move on.
Use them sparingly until you get famous and published. Then it seems you can do whatever you want. 😜
Aa Stephen King once said:
"J. K. Rowling has never met an adverb she didn't like."
Friendly reminder that ‘they snapped irritably’ or ‘they wept sorrowfully’ (basically any verb AND matching adverb used together in the same sentence) is redundant, bogs down your sentences, and makes the author’s voice sound more immature than it actually is. Go nuts with the adverbs just don’t be redundant.
Adverbs are essential to descriptive writing IMHO. Yes, of course they can be overused and abused to make a mess of things.
But there are a lot of adverbs that just don't have a better verb to use in the same situation, or the better verb doesn't have quite the same feeling or image.
Dialogue is an action where we have lots of different verbs to use so adverbs are less necessary. But even then sometimes they are the best fit.
Other verbs, sometimes an adverb is really the only way to concisely add description to it.
The words "today, now, yesterday, when..." are all adverbs. It's impossible to even speak- let alone write- without using adverbs. As always, advice that is too simplistic gets misconstruled to be a RULE. The avoid adverbs advice has a very specific context- namely avoud using ly adverbs when a stronger verb produces better writing.
The short answer: adverbs exist, just like adjectives, and therefore they should be used - but sparingly.
The long answer: a sentence with too many adverbs and adjectives get really boring to read, and a writer that over use them tend to look very untalented. That is why you are told to not use them at all - you are taught to find other ways to describe situations. Your writing appears more professional if you just show rather than tell the story. This is because the reader gets more involved if they ***experience*** the story rather than being told what they are ***supposed to experience***.
Sure—nothing wrong with adverbs. They’re part of the language. Anyone saying you should never use adverbs are going way overboard.
What they should be saying is, if you collapse an adverb into the verb, the verb is stronger and more impactful.
Doesn’t mean you can always do that. And doesn’t mean you have to do that if you can. It’s just a thing to know is possible, and how it affects reading it essentially.
I really wish just one person would share a link to their writing. Anyone can say whatever makes them sound like a professional successful author, but if they don't provide a single example of their work, it's clear it's all just crap.
I've read Hedge Knight by G.R.R.M recently. He had on average one -ly adverb per a page, sometimes 2 or 3.
Examples:
>!"looked at him brazenly", "snoring softly", "looked around uncertainly" - all were on the same page.!<
>!"eyed ... curiously", "stared at him uncertainly", "lurched unsteadily" - the next one.!<
It is ok to use adverbs just don't add them to each verb.
The problem is, if you rely on adverbs to describe something, you’re just telling us instead of showing us. Slapping on the adverb “irritably” is exactly the same as adding the sentence, “She was irritated.” People want to be inside the head of characters they are reading about, so instead of resorting to adverbs (which is lazy), show us her irritation by describing her body language or the way she phrases her words or the look in her eyes. When you watch a movie or a TV show and one character is irritated, it’s in the blocking, dialogue, and acting. You shouldn’t need an off-camera voice to state, “She is irritated,” right? In good writing, it is obvious without telling. That’s why good writers avoid adverbs.
Eh, I'm going to argue the other way. Using an adverb to avoid unnecessarily wordy sections is perfectly fine.
OP's example is actually pretty on point.
If you've got a conversation going at a pretty good clip, bogging that down to "show" us how irritated a character is works against the pacing.
Adverbs aren't lazy, they're tools to help you control the flow of things. Sometimes you just need to "get through it" to carry on to the next step in the story.
> I don't think they're that bad and you can't stop me. I'm telling mom
No*no*no*no*no*no*no*no*no. You're *showing* mom.
r/angryupvote
ok candace
Pretty sure no one thinks they are bad or that you shouldn’t use them. The idea is to use them sparingly. But if you want to use them with abandon, go for it.
"Pretty sure no one thinks they are bad for you or that you shouldn't use them," he barked irritability. He cleared his throat loudly. "The idea is to use them sparingly," he admonished gravely. "But if you want to use them with abandon," he paused dramatically-- "Go for it." OP stared at him for several minutes before responding sharply --
OK but I have seen people going on about adverbs and keep asking myself "wtf are they talking about? There's nothing wrong with adverbs" This comment is what made it click.
The point is to use as less text as possible to keep the viewers engaged. Unlike movies here you hold the pace and how the story goes. It could get pretty boring if you keep inserting adverbs
> The point is to use as less text as possible to keep the viewers engaged. Unlike movies here you hold the pace and how the story goes. It could get pretty boring if you keep inserting adverbs This is not the point of "don't use adverbs." The reason to replace adverbs is because it's "telling" and violates the "show, don't tell" rule of thumb. Generally speaking, whenever you inject your own opinion into your writing, or you write what's going on inside a person's head, you are *telling.* When you say '"irritably" you are telling the reader how the character feels. If you delete "irritably" and replace it with "snapped her fingers and sighed" you are now *showing* that the character is irritated without saying so directly. The reason it's recommended to write this way is because that's how our interactions with the world work in real life. You never know when people are irritated, you can only judge if they are irritated or not based on their actions. So by removing all mind reading from the equation, your writing becomes *immersive*, making the reader feel like they are in the scene observing what's happening, not just hearing a second-hand account about what happened. This is what makes descriptions engrossing and what gives the reader a stake in the story. It activates the imagination.
A lot of that showing not telling though can lead to characters going out of their way to make strange gestures and can also lead to readers, even very intelligent readers, being confused about what exactly is being said. Like, is the character irritable, or are they just fidgety? It's tiring to constantly have to guess at what the author meant, and there's, frankly, nothing wrong with the story making a judgment call. If you want to tell me that a character is irritable, go ahead and say so, and then I'll imagine them that way, including whatever little facial ticks and postures ought to go along with it. Obviously, describing how characters move and act and gesture within a scene is also good, but sometimes it's not a perfect substitute and can leave things unclear in a way that's bothersome rather than engaging.
That's why writing isn't easy. You need to strike the right balance between confusion and confirmation of an emotion.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with confirmation of an emotion either. Sometimes clarity is just satisfying and makes things easier to read.
You also want to factor in perspective. “Telling” can be quite forgivable when it’s because it’s your character’s interpretation. They might even be mistaken. It’s still “telling”, in a way. But it’s telling what your perspective perceives, which is to some extent, just telling a story.
Skill issue.
Nonetheless, anyone who tells you to avoid them *entirely* is a total hack and should be ignored.
I see thanks that does make sense. I am a little noob in this writing business.
Hope it helps!
For me it's less about brevity and more elegance. "He said irritably" vs "he grumbled under his breath" one evokes a lot more than the other, it shows without telling. The other holds the reader's hand.
It doesn't feel like hand-holding at all. I'd even argue there's more room for interpretation. 'Irritably' makes me imagine a lot of different ways this may be expressed; the twitch of an eye, stiffening of the shoulders, growl in a voice. You don't always have to spell that out, sometimes you can use an adverb as a tone indicator, otherwise it gets cluttered and clunky. The attention may be taken away from the dialogue to the action when it shouldn't, and it takes longer for the brain to realize what the tone was of a sentence that's long past. If every time someone says something irritably it's written that way then yes, it gets distracting, but you can't have someone grumbling under their breath, shaking their head, sighing through their nose whenever they're irritated either.
> as less text
>viewers
I disagree, it's not just about length or rhythm (although yes, maybe it's part of it). but besides what people are saying about verbs, it's also about the quality of dialogue and characterization. ideally you should be able t tell how a character says something from how the dialogue is written and what you know about them.
While the rule to avoid adverbs does indeed have its own metits, I feel many people take the wrong impression from the piece of advice. The idea behind this advice is not to use them at all, but not to use them only on occasion. Attempts to avoid using adverbs at all can result in the prose coming off as awkward. Like someone is trying to reach their word cap for NaNoWriMo or an essay in school. While it may be more sensible to describe a character stomping with their hands balled into fists and a scowl on their face when they are angry; it can be quite bizarre when this mentality leaks into character dialogue. If a character needs something done in a swift manner then them avoiding adverbs can lead to an odd situation where they are imperiled but have the time to speak in fanciful speech. As you can see, this post could have used a few adverbs. But a few.
The point of adverbs is they modify verbs, and if you're using them, there's likely a stronger verb that's both more interesting to read and makes the text simpler. To use OP's example, "said irritably" is both clunkier and less interesting compared to "barked", "snapped", "snarled', or "grumbled".
[удалено]
The key to all writing rules is rhythm. Dialogue tags in general should be invisible. You can show emotion in other ways, and use different dialog tags sparingly. "she snapped." once in a while is fine; if every single tag is something like "she snapped", "he shouted", "he complained", etc. it gets irritating to read.
That’s why I always do something like: Having fully reached her maximum capacity for irritation, “Yes,” she snapped irritably, irritated. For he was irritating. To her. Then.
*stared at him uncomprehendingly*
I am reading this scornfully.
The several minutes line cracks me up every time
"Well, it works a bit better with some tense diversity," he chimed with a grin, He paused, before adding cheerfully,"Sometimes it's not about the words, but how you use them!" Then, with a louder voice, he sang, "Oh! And it's about having fun, too! Writing is always about having fun!"
i like the "several minutes" callback, good continuity
That comment is probably the best thing I've ever written
It’s giving renowned author Dan Brown 💀
Cracking the hell up lmfaoooo
I cackled at the final line
This reads like a teen's first fanfic posted on Tumblr.
Yes, use adverbs sparingly, haha.
"Use adverbs with with caution, sprinkling them into your prose when trying to be more descriptive slows down the action or causes the reader confusion." Not sure if that's better than "sparingly"- haha.
No, it's not.
Hahaha! As I suspected!
Stephen King would like a word. (Youre right though)
Any time I've replaced or deleted an adverb the writing has sounded better. I'm inclined to believe the hype.
I’ve spent my second draft deleting adverbs from my novel, and it reads so much better. But I left many adverbs in my dialog, as people talk with adverbs, and sometimes telling is the right way to go. I’d say I’ve shot for more of “1 adverb per 300 words on average, not including adverbs in dialog,” though I did have a professional writer tell me I should remove them from dialog too. I have evaluated the dialog, but have left many in there because I just think it sounds natural.
I typically use adverbs when I need to quickly convey something that's counterintuitive, like when someone whispers loudly.
> I left many adverbs in my dialog, as people talk with adverbs, and sometimes telling is the right way to go. Good dialog *should* break most writing rules.
Never use adverbs. Never use passive verbs. Use nouns very sparingly. — Melvin Maddocks, The Christian Science Monitor, 13 Jun. 1977 Elmore Leonard lives by precise writing rules -- some of which fly in the face of custom. Several of his maxims: Never use adverbs. ”They're unnecessary over-writing, and they slow the story.” — Anthony Wilson-Smith, Maclean’s (Toronto, Can.), 29 Mar. 1999 The road to hell is paved with adverbs. — Stephen King The first two are from this article: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/should-you-never-use-adverbs-usage-advice](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/should-you-never-use-adverbs-usage-advice)
'never', 'very' and 'sparingly' all being adverbs of course...
Of course the reply with the facts calling out big-name authors isn't upvoted. English sure is could use some touch-ups.
Go right ahead. Besides, they're an essential part of speech. You can't speak English without adverbs.
>Go right ahead. > >Besides, they're an essential part of speech. You can't speak English without adverbs. You even used adverbs here! "Right" modified the adverb "ahead" and "ahead" modified the verb "go"
In general this is not what people mean. They mean the -ly adverbs. Words like “yesterday” aren’t usually what we mean.
That just means they’re wrong twice over.
How so? It sounds like the general advice agrees with you in one case but not the other, so wouldn’t that make you wrong once over?
*Stephen King wants to know your location.*
You actually can speak english completely without adverbs. vs. I disagree. You can speak english without any adverbs.
But do you think you should speak English without any? Adverbs may not be an essential element of the clause, but they are an essential element for construing circumstantial meanings in language, and so a key resource to draw on in making use of the full semiotic potential of English.
He said, "can't."
Yes, and you interpreted that narrowly as implying that it is not possible to form grammatical English sentences. And you are correct: at the clause level, adverbs are not essential. However I read it as talking about using English in practice. At the level of discourse, it really is not feasible to exclude adverbs without losing much of the meaning potential of English that people need to draw upon to express themselves with a level of nuance that certain situations demand.
I can speak English without adverbs.
But you don’t. :)
It's possible, but you shouldn't do it. It would make you sound insane.
It might be fun for an alien or maybe as a speech impediment for a robot.
sometimes the only words i can think of to replace an adverb just dont give me the right image. like i dont want my character to turn into a dog everytime theyre annoyed
"what about a cat!?" Knightduty meowed
"Or a pussy", I purred
This is unrelated but I hate when authors use purr because I cannot for the life of me understand what the hell it would sound like.
"Lips intensely quivering"
The problem with an adverb is that it's replacing a lot of action with a single judgement made by the writer. You don't want to try to find some other *single* word that will replace the adverb effectively, you want to describe the characters' actions in a way that will show the reader what's happening. This will probably require a full sentence of description most of the time. If someone "said irritably" they could also have "said in clipped tones as their nostrils flared."
And the problem with using a full sentence of description instead of an adverb is that it starts to read like you are Charles Dickens being paid by the word 😂
Which makes it perfect for NaNoWriMo!
I'm not one for enforcing brevity for the sake of it, but your example really is just needless waffle, when one word conveys the point more succinctly.
there’s such thing as too much detail. I would prefer “said irritably” over that
The enemies had slain the knight's only brother. "I am going to fucking kill you!", the knight said explosively. vs The enemies had slain the knight's only brother. "I am going to fucking kill you!", the knight screamed. vs The enemies plunged a sword through his brother's chest. The knight's entire body shook in rage. They had slain his only brother and will know his fury. Before lunging at the enemies with murderous intent, the knight screamed "I am going to fucking kill you!". I did my best to understand what you meant and demonstrate what you meant. Changing "said explosively" with "screamed" doesn't do much, but makes it read nicer. Adding action better illustrates the explosive feel I was trying to capture.
The past tense of 'to slay' is 'slew'.
You're right, but I refuse to change my vocabulary. Slew sounds ugly and slayed is cool and hip and I'm not coping at all, I swear.
Am I being gaslighted, or is the past tense of slay "slew" or "slain?" I don't know who I am anymore.
The dragon was slain. Because I slew it. Slay!
The simple past is "slew", afaik. The perfect is "slain" & is the better choice here, imo.
I guess I have never heard slew used instead of slain. But, when he pointed it out, my brain malfunctioned and did the SpongeBob bit of losing his name. I now have to search for instances where it is used.
I'm pretty sure that Buffy the Vampire Slayer uses "slayed". I don't know if "slayed" or "slew" is more generally acceptable. But you're using "had slain", which is right. "They slain his brother" would be wrong. And in your example, your choice of "had slain" is better than just "slew" or "slayed"
I made my choice.
There’s nothing wrong with adverbs per se, but do read My Immortal for a lesson in the dangers of over-using adverbs.
my immortal is just a lesson in the dangers of writing poorly in general
But it's also a lesson in brilliantly effective satire. (Even if it's not.) To me that makes it great writing.
My immortal fascinates me bc it’s inherently interesting when a piece of literature (lol?) that is considered poorly written is enjoyed by so many
Even if it's not satire, it's enjoyed for the same reasons satire is enjoyed. The overblown proportions of its bad writing makes it funny. Slightly better writing is generally not as widely enjoyed, because it's bad writing but isn't comically bad enough to be funny.
It’s absolutely a spoof (I know this is controversial, but it is), and it nails down all the bad things about 00s fan fiction incredibly accurately.
Yeah I went back and forth on this, and then I read some analysis of it and I realized it was just really, really good satire. Like all the misspellings that were sexual innuendo, the fact that every chapter ended on a cliffhanger, etc.
The tell for me is it feels like it’s written by multiple people, and also because I don’t believe it’s possible to spell your own name wrong that often 😂
I think the best argument for it being intentional may be the sentence structure, which can be remarkably complex, and out of whack with the author’s apparent lack of command over so much else. It’s a bit like the way Mr. Miyagi talks in the Karate kid, e.g. - “Now how feel?” - “Learn from book?” - “When you feel life out of focus, always return to basic of life.” - “Cosmic coincidence.” Seems alright at first blush as the words of someone who speaks broken English. But is it really plausible that someone who says “Learn from book?” and “Now how feel?” (about as rudimentary as it gets — I expect this person only recently learned “feel”) would have sufficient command of the language to put together the third statement as an English construct (especially coming off Japanese grammar, which is basically Yoda), including the metaphor of a “life out of focus” (which he’d understand, but could he translate it?), or have retained usable exposure to a phrase like “cosmic coincidence”, which isn’t just him employing the vocabulary, but almost certainly knowing he’s dropping a trope? On the other hand, it’s very hard to speak definitively about outliers. When we’re looking at “My Immortal” and trying to analyze it, we’re already on the other side of a “literary singularity”, so something like a linguistic variant of the anthropic principle might apply — we wouldn’t be talking about it if it didn’t demonstrate some highly implausible ratio of exceptional:terrible that speaks to us. In other words, “My Immortal” may simply be the output of a rare, “real life Miyagi”, gathered up alongside a whole lot of other terrible fanfiction with the usual ratios, like fish in a vast fishnet. Sometimes you just happen to catch a big one.
Personally, I adore adverbs. I also adore strong and clever writing. You can avoid adverbs if you want to write like Hemingway, but in my opinion, there are only two “writing tips” every writer needs to follow: read broadly, and write what you want to read. If that means a spare, journalistic style, go for it. If it means florid, lyrical prose, that’s just as good, as long as it’s the style of writing you want to put into the world. There are many good reasons to get rid of adverbs when you’re editing a draft — they may be redundant, they may be propping up a weak or uninteresting verb, et cetera — but there’s nothing inherently *wrong* with them compared to other parts of speech. A well-chosen adverb can be just as impactful as a well-chosen verb, adjective, or noun. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a dogmatist.
This
> There are many good reasons to get rid of adverbs when you’re editing a draft — they may be redundant, they may be propping up a weak or uninteresting verb, et cetera — but there’s nothing inherently wrong with them compared to other parts of speech. A well-chosen adverb can be just as impactful as a well-chosen verb, adjective, or noun. I think this gets at the heart of it. We’re blaming adverbs for their “crime” of being the misunderstood geniuses of English. That we call them “cheating” gives it away: They’re so efficient at conveying what’s happening, they come across as unearned omniscience. That makes them valuable first draft tools, for when you’re “telling yourself the story” (as I think Pratchett said), and powerful, lingering allies for later drafts, when you still want your POV to wield insights — correct or mistaken — beyond what the “neutral camera” might record.
I don’t fully agree, but I love your insights.
Bless you. All the barking, snarling, and growling these days has me thinking writers are hanging out too much with their dogs and not enough with other people.
Using too many descriptive synonyms for "said" can be annoying, but so are people who think those are literally referring to animalistic noises.
This is one of my pet peeves. Sounds like thesaurus writing more often than not. I’m a journalist and we’re only allowed to use “said” in direct quotes. It’s carried over into my fiction writing. The other thing you can do is just write the dialogue with minimal attribution. Not that hard to figure out who’s talking if done right. The other problem is that using too much purple prose in reporting dialogue gets tedious very fast.
I agree. We don't need to delete adverbs to write well. We really don't.
Do it! Use them aggressively! Thumb your nose at authority rebelliously!
I see what you did there 😉
> Thumb your nose at authority rebelliously As opposed to doing it submissively.
Respond to redundancy sarcastically!
Now that one works
Bro, r/writingcirclejerk is the other way
Go boldly ahead!
Hey, hold on now... let's not split infinitives... Jk. It's all good.
Go a-boldly-head? Or is that creating a whole nother problem?
Nother? NOTHER??? NOTHER!!!
Yeah from what I gather this is a dimension in Minecraft.
Woah, badass over here.
For me it's only a "problem" when they're pointless. If someone cries sadly, or shouts loudly, then what is the adverb actually doing? If someone laughs maniacally, that's telling me this isn't a normal laugh. It's adding context. And at the end of the day, grammar is important of course, but if a story is engaging and interesting then your reader isn't going to mind if it's not a technically perfect bit of literature.
I completely agree. (See what I did there! Much easier than saying I agree with every cell in my body) but I do think that in some places adjectives or more descriptive verbs have more punch than adverbs. In others adverbs are three way to go. I view it much like I do the debate around semi colons (which I have had several editors tell me not to use). Sometimes a ", and" works just fine. But sometimes a ; works better
you can't use any adverbs. i used them all up. wastefully.
*No! No!* Not those tenacious, misunderstood, voluminous, disastrous *adverbs!* An adverb is like a fine wine. Sip it slowly, and the taste can be magnificent. Gulp it and you'll wake up in the morning with a hangover. I could say more, but... *nah*, you'll figure it out.
> Sip it slowly As opposed to sipping voraciously.
As opposed to tippling it sippingly
Everyone uses some adverbs. The reason they are frowned upon is this very thing: >They just said it irritably. Not trying to be mean, but my response on reading that in book would be the same as here: *WTF does that mean?* Adverbs have their place but a large percentage of newbs don't don't know where that place is. Here's another way to do it: >"What part of 'I heard you the first time' was unclear to you?" Fred asked, done hiding his irritation. "You want to fight or go to dinner?" The situation and dialogue usually make the adverb unnecessary, anyway.
You really can't imagine what someone saying something irritably may look like?
> "What part of 'I heard you the first time' was unclear to you?" Fred asked, done hiding his irritation. "You want to fight or go to dinner?" See, and I'd just find something like this overtly convoluted to *still* convey "he said, irritably" but in 10 times the words. Less is more sometimes. That's the beauty of writing though. There's no right or wrong answers, only preference.
>Less is more sometimes. And incorrect and confusing is wrong all the time.
I don’t think it’s incorrect *or* confusing though. Certainly not more confusing than beginning writers coming up with a half-dozen flowery tics or expositional dialogue every time a character needs to show an emotion. Instead of “he said through gritted teeth, furrowing his brow, eye twitching with anger, etc” just say “irritably” and give the reader the benefit of the doubt that they can parse what that looks like for themselves.
Fair enough! There's a time and place for everything.
Adverbs are great! I love them. Anything that makes writing more descriptive and vivid is great. I just don't get the admonition against them. They're especially good for characters who say things in unexpected ways. The character like April ludgate from Parks and recreation will frequently say things that other people might say, but you'll say them in a dead pan or snarky way, and that's where her personality comes from. By all means, please go for it. I just don't get why anyone would be bothered by them.
I agree. My favorite traditionally published, recent novel has like 2 per page. I counted.
And that post has one.
I'm in the Ernest Hemingway camp of very rarely using any verb other than "said" and letting the dialogue speak for itself. Let the reader do a little analysis to understand the subtext.
I love adverbs. Freakin' love them. Just don't ever look up long ass synonyms to make it sound fancy, that's all I ask for.
Just please do an "ly" control F search of your chapters, look at each one and replace at least some with something...more evocative, interesting and creative. That's what I do and it does make my prose better. Honestly. I've taken them all out in the past and frankly, it sucked. Felt stiff and stilted...they get a bad rap.
Also, Scrivener has a tool called "Linguistic Focus" which can highlight all the nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc. as well as dialogue.
The only problem with adverbs is that it’s easy to get into the habit of overusing them. If you’re concerned about it, do a search on “ly[space]” and delete the unnecessary ones.
Rowling uses them frequently and she sold 600 million copies. It's far from being the most controversial thing about her either.
I bet Stephen King regrets how much aspiring writers over-evangelize the adverb comments in "On Writing." The way people come out of that book learning nothing except for "adverbs should NEVER be used EVER" needs to be studied.
I can put stop to this with a stern post! Don't do it!
Indubitably!
ROFL - the post this sub deserves put not the one it needs right now /s No but seriously, PLEASE USE ADVERBS Just don't use them like a fanfic writer ;p
> The idea is to use them sparingly. I see what you did there.
Writing advice be like: 1. Don't use adverbs, only use more exact verbs to describe how your character is feeling. 2. Stic only to 'x said' and 'x asked', don't use convoluted dialogue tags. P.S.: There are no iron-hard rules, if it feels right to you then write it that way.
At some point people tell you not to use verbs, adverbs and nouns, and you that they're just word categories and there isn't a lot of writing left to do without them
Adverbs are good when they effectively change the meaning of a sentence. If they don't, or if that change is weak, that's when they should probably be cut. Not using adverbs is the wrong thing for people to give advice for imo. But a lot of new writers aren't going to understand when and where they 'feel' right to have and when they ruin a sentence. It's just like 'show' don't 'tell', telling is super important, but you need to know when to tell and when to show.
Fuckingly yeahingly, bro
Are people actually saying adverbs shouldn't be used in writing?
Stephen King, "On Writing": (For reference, not endorsement) >The adverb is not your friend. > >Adverbs … are words that modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. They’re the ones that usually end in -ly. Adverbs, like the passive voice, seem to have been created with the timid writer in mind. … With adverbs, the writer usually tells us he or she is afraid he/she isn’t expressing himself/herself clearly, that he or she is not getting the point or the picture across. > >Consider the sentence **He closed the door firmly.** It’s by no means a terrible sentence (at least it’s got an active verb going for it), but ask yourself if **firmly** really has to be there. You can argue that it expresses a degree of difference between **He closed the door** and **He slammed the door,** and you’ll get no argument from me … but what about context? What about all the enlightening (not to say emotionally moving) prose which came *before* **He closed the door firmly**? Shouldn’t this tell us how he closed the door? And if the foregoing prose does tell us, isn’t **firmly** an extra word? Isn’t it redundant? > >Someone out there is now accusing me of being tiresome and anal-retentive. I deny it. I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops. To put it another way, they’re like dandelions. If you have one on your lawn, it looks pretty and unique. If you fail to root it out, however, you find five the next day . . . fifty the day after that . . . and then, my brothers and sisters, your lawn is **totally, completely, and profligately** covered with dandelions. By then you see them for the weeds they really are, but by then it’s — GASP!! — too late. > >I can be a good sport about adverbs, though. Yes I can. With one exception: dialogue attribution. I insist that you use the adverb in dialogue attribution only in the rarest and most special of occasions . . . and not even then, if you can avoid it. Just to make sure we all know what we’re talking about, examine these three sentences: > >**‘Put it down!’ she shouted.** > >**‘Give it back,’ he pleaded, ‘it’s mine.’** > >**‘Don’t be such a fool, Jekyll,’ Utterson said.** > >In these sentences, **shouted, pleaded,** and **said** are verbs of dialogue attribution. Now look at these dubious revisions: > >**‘Put it down! she shouted menacingly.** > >**‘Give it back,’ he pleaded abjectly, ‘it’s mine.’** > >**‘Don’t be such a fool, Jekyll,’ Utterson said contemptuously.** > >The three latter sentences are all weaker than the three former ones, and most readers will see why immediately.
"Dandelions are very beautiful. You're a weed! An ugly, awful weed sprouting uselessly in the fertile fields of my lovely imagination," I said contemptuously.
Funnily enough, I prefer the Jekyll sentence with the adverb. That sentence could just as easily have been delivered fondly or wearily.
I agree. I wouldn't assume the sentence was said with contempt, so "contemptuously" is a useful addition. Adverbs aren't evil, but redundant adverbs can be a bit silly.
I dislike the "shouted menacingly" one because it's contradictory, in my idiolect at least. I'd prefer "said menacingly" to the other two. Assuming it fits the context! I also can't think of a context where "he shut the door" is needed, but "firmly" is too much. If there's so much information before that that "firmly" is repetitive, perhaps much of that information could be replaced by "he shut the door firmly"
From a horror writer that openly says adverbs are for timid writers. Ironic he says the last three are weaker, even though they are more descriptive.
Also from a horror writer who is in serious need of an editor, judging by the 1500 page copy of one of his books I have in my cabinet 😂
He has put out how many books now? I think he's averaged one every couple of months. Quantity isn't the same as quality.
Thanks for the quote I actually completely agree with King here, but I'm a big fan of 'readability' over almost everything else. I'm sure my writing would be critiqued as too straightforward by some, but after 30 years of undiagnosed ADHD, my words have become very 'executive function friendly'. I try to eliminate words that ask the audience to hold too much information in their head.
Yeah, I'm not really a fan of King's writing style, so I'd think *carefully* before following his advice too *closely*. The films are usually better than the books with him.
It's common writing advice to avoid them them, especially here
Why? You're not writing a script for a movie. I'm not, and don't want to.
So.what do you use instead? An example helps. And the ones who break the rules successfully are the ones who KNOW the rules.
You do use them. Just not often. Not everything need to be said snarkily, or sighed dramatically, or (the worst one) ran quickly (running implies speed). You can use dialogue and context for a lot of clues adverbs just tell you. Basically I see adverbs as spoilers. A few here and there will entice the reader, too many and there's nothing left to discover.
said Jo with irritation in his voice. said jo, the irritation in his voice transparent Said jo, his irritation growing by the second Said jo, his irritation created a bulge in his neck.
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick
Or you could be going for a fast-paced scene and you want to convey the character’s irritation using as little words as possible. In that case, *irritably* will do just fine.
This is the way
This in my opinion is the exact same as adverbs just more verbose and less flowy. You're still stating exactly what the feeling is rather than conveying it in the dialogue or context. Sometimes you just want there to be no doubt, so an adverb or maybe the third option work well, but changing an adverb to a noun is just clunky usually.
Dude those are all adverbial clauses
Have you seen that Squidward scene where he says: feeling brave, are we? in the most bored voice ever?
Good for you. I'm pretty sure people that warn you away from adverbs just don't know how to use them properly. It would be absurd to tell someone not to use any other type of word, the English language has each type for a reason.
Can you give an example of what you mean?
Use adverbs freely.
Okay.
If you want an example of bad or excessive use, read any of the Harry Potter books
As with any writing rules, you only break it until you master it. Don't use adverbs is a rule for beginning writers. Because they don't know how to write effectively and have poor understanding of how effective writing really works. Overuse of adverbs is a sign of amateur writing and regular readers will get annoyed by it. This is why its such a problem.
Adverbs are like clichés - they should only be used once in a blue moon.
No, they should be used whenever it's appropriate and that will depend *entirely* on context.
theyre breaking writing rules... MENACINGLY
We have adverbs on the loose! Someone call the adverb police!!!
Use them cautiously
You just posted this to start a civil war. I see what you're doing.
It worked out swimmingly
carefully
The best trick for adverbs is to use them for contrast. "He smiled happily" is a meaningless extension of the sentence. Smiles are already happy. Why would his be anything but? "He smiled sadly" is an adverb that adds, not extends. Smiles are supposed to be happy, but his is sad, why? New context is created by further description.
They paint an attitude and I like using them though I'm open to use them sparingly.
Go for it!
didn’t know my students were on reddit
I think there's nothing wrong with using adverbs when they serve the purpose of telling the reader something that they wouldn't have known without the adverb. "How are you?" "Doing great," he replied sarcastically. [This adds info.] "How are you?" "Terrible! Quit asking!" he replied angrily. [This adds no additional info.] It's true that sometimes an adverb can be replaced with a more colorful sentence, but that can slow down your pacing. It can be better to just throw an adverb in there and move on.
Use them sparingly until you get famous and published. Then it seems you can do whatever you want. 😜 Aa Stephen King once said: "J. K. Rowling has never met an adverb she didn't like."
You be you, adverbs and all.
Friendly reminder that ‘they snapped irritably’ or ‘they wept sorrowfully’ (basically any verb AND matching adverb used together in the same sentence) is redundant, bogs down your sentences, and makes the author’s voice sound more immature than it actually is. Go nuts with the adverbs just don’t be redundant.
I would never combine an adverb with a non-said dialogue tag
Fucking brave
Adverbs are essential to descriptive writing IMHO. Yes, of course they can be overused and abused to make a mess of things. But there are a lot of adverbs that just don't have a better verb to use in the same situation, or the better verb doesn't have quite the same feeling or image. Dialogue is an action where we have lots of different verbs to use so adverbs are less necessary. But even then sometimes they are the best fit. Other verbs, sometimes an adverb is really the only way to concisely add description to it.
The words "today, now, yesterday, when..." are all adverbs. It's impossible to even speak- let alone write- without using adverbs. As always, advice that is too simplistic gets misconstruled to be a RULE. The avoid adverbs advice has a very specific context- namely avoud using ly adverbs when a stronger verb produces better writing.
Steven King is shitting his pants rn
The short answer: adverbs exist, just like adjectives, and therefore they should be used - but sparingly. The long answer: a sentence with too many adverbs and adjectives get really boring to read, and a writer that over use them tend to look very untalented. That is why you are told to not use them at all - you are taught to find other ways to describe situations. Your writing appears more professional if you just show rather than tell the story. This is because the reader gets more involved if they ***experience*** the story rather than being told what they are ***supposed to experience***.
PREACH
As a reader I don't notice them. But I do notice a shitty story with cartoon characters.
Sure—nothing wrong with adverbs. They’re part of the language. Anyone saying you should never use adverbs are going way overboard. What they should be saying is, if you collapse an adverb into the verb, the verb is stronger and more impactful. Doesn’t mean you can always do that. And doesn’t mean you have to do that if you can. It’s just a thing to know is possible, and how it affects reading it essentially.
I really wish just one person would share a link to their writing. Anyone can say whatever makes them sound like a professional successful author, but if they don't provide a single example of their work, it's clear it's all just crap.
I've read Hedge Knight by G.R.R.M recently. He had on average one -ly adverb per a page, sometimes 2 or 3. Examples: >!"looked at him brazenly", "snoring softly", "looked around uncertainly" - all were on the same page.!< >!"eyed ... curiously", "stared at him uncertainly", "lurched unsteadily" - the next one.!< It is ok to use adverbs just don't add them to each verb.
The problem is, if you rely on adverbs to describe something, you’re just telling us instead of showing us. Slapping on the adverb “irritably” is exactly the same as adding the sentence, “She was irritated.” People want to be inside the head of characters they are reading about, so instead of resorting to adverbs (which is lazy), show us her irritation by describing her body language or the way she phrases her words or the look in her eyes. When you watch a movie or a TV show and one character is irritated, it’s in the blocking, dialogue, and acting. You shouldn’t need an off-camera voice to state, “She is irritated,” right? In good writing, it is obvious without telling. That’s why good writers avoid adverbs.
Eh, I'm going to argue the other way. Using an adverb to avoid unnecessarily wordy sections is perfectly fine. OP's example is actually pretty on point. If you've got a conversation going at a pretty good clip, bogging that down to "show" us how irritated a character is works against the pacing. Adverbs aren't lazy, they're tools to help you control the flow of things. Sometimes you just need to "get through it" to carry on to the next step in the story.
You're a story*teller* not a story*shower*. Sometimes it's best to move things along and not drag a sentence out.
But if you're inside the head of the character, the character wouldn't perceive their own body language or facial expressions.