# It's Hunting Season...and I'm Hunting Adverbs!



## Androxine Vortex (Feb 7, 2013)

Alright so I am trying to improve my writing skills and be more efficient in my words. I've been told before I have trouble with redundancy and over use of adverbs so I'm trying to keep an eye out for them. I wrote an opening paragraph for one of my projects and have already gone through and edited it a bit and here's what I have. (I'll even show some parts where I edited things out by putting them in parenthesis) 


         Night was coming. Beams of orange light pierced through the (tall) canopy of the woods, casting (dark) shadows across the ground. A soft breeze was blowing, gently and silently swaying branches (on the trees) back and forth. The only sound came from cracking twigs and crunching leaves being trampled underfoot. People were moving through the forest, nimbly maneuvering between the bushes and the trees. They moved with a great haste because they knew that night was coming.


Now that I look at this I can see some areas that I think might need some work...

1) *A soft breeze was blowing, gently and silently swaying branches back and forth.* 

Should I get rid of gently and silently? Or maybe just silently because gently would imply being silent.

Also, maybe back and forth isn't that necessary because if something sways the reader could imagine it moving back and forth.

2) *People were moving through the forest, nimbly maneuvering between the bushes and the trees.*

I'm not sure I really love the verb "maneuvering" perhaps I could edit that.

I think bushes and trees could be cut because if people are in a forest, I'll bet you $10,000 there will be bushes and trees. (And yes I know I repeated "night was coming" because I did that on purpose to put emphasis on it because nighttime is a very important factor in my story.


Looking at this I must say I am a little proud of myself for cutting out some things on my own  But even though I do see some more things, I don't want to hack my work until there's nothing left but the bare minimum. I feel that if I do that then there won't be enough flavor. I also would like to say thank you to all the members on this forum who have really helped me learn about the art of writing. There's a lot to it that people don't realize.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 7, 2013)

I believe that trying to make your writing tighter is a worthy and admirable goal.  I'll try to help:



> Night was coming.



Generally speaking, I find "was" + ing form of the verb to be passive and inefficient.  Consider something like "approached."



> Beams of orange light pierced through the (tall) canopy of the woods



"The" canopy implies we've seen the canopy already.  You may mean "a" canopy.

Do you need "of the woods?"  If you replaced it with the adjective "leafy," would that convey what you want?

"Through" is an unnecessary word, imo, in this sentence.



> woods, casting (dark) shadows across the ground.



Some would consider ", casting" to be inferior to "and cast."  Just something to consider.

Is this entire phrase unnecessary?  It's kinda intuitive that light being blocked by an object casts a shadow.



> A soft breeze was blowing, gently and silently swaying branches (on the trees) back and forth.



Consider "blew" instead of "was blowing."

Is "silently" accurate?  It's hard to imagine the branches not making any noise.

Back and forth is not needed.

If you want to be really tight, all you need is: A soft breeze swayed branches. 



> The only sound came from cracking twigs and crunching leaves being trampled underfoot.



This is really passive.  Characters cracked twigs and crunched leaves underfoot.  What's better: sounds coming or Joe cracking and crunching?



> People were moving through the forest, nimbly maneuvering between the bushes and the trees.



I can't figure out which bothers me more about this sentence: that it restates a lot of the information you gave us in the previous sentence or that it seems so contradictory to the previous sentence.  Granted, that can be used as a solid technique, but I don't think that was your purpose or that you achieved any impact unintentionally.  



> They moved with a great haste because they knew that night was coming.



I'd make this a separate paragraph to make it stand out more.  

I like the repetition for effect here, but I think you'd do better exactly repeating the start of the piece.

They moved with great haste.  Night was coming.  (or, if you take my earlier suggestion, Night approached.)

Hope this helps!

Brian


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 7, 2013)

> "The" canopy implies we've seen the canopy already. You may mean "a" canopy.



I think "the" canopy is correct here; "a" would suggest the woods have more than one canopy which I don't think is right.



> This is really passive. Characters cracked twigs and crunched leaves underfoot. What's better: sounds coming or Joe cracking and crunching?



I think the answer is: it depends.  If the author's intent is to emphasize the overall silence and that the _only _sound is cracking and crunching, the original version is better.  If the author's intent is to emphasize character action, the second is better.  Perhaps you could get a twofer with: "The only sound was cracking twigs and crunching leaves as people moved through the forest."

As an aside, I have to say I quite enjoy something like this -- people bouncing ideas off each other as to what works or doesn't work in a piece of text.  It really helps me understand the writing process better and the perspective different writers (and readers!) come from.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 7, 2013)

Brian has already given you some great advice so I'm only going to touch on the adverbs a bit further. 

I understand what you mean by resisting the urge to cut too much, risking the loss of "flavor". However, I feel the only time an adverb should be used in prose is when it is the BEST word to describe what you trying to impart. In my opinion, these are rare, but it does happen. Others will disagree.

Let's take a close up look at the example below:



Androxine Vortex said:


> A soft breeze was blowing, gently and silently swaying branches back and forth.



What are you trying to impart with "gently"?

What are you attempting to impart with "silently"? 

For the sake of brevity, let's assume you accept Brian's point about the breeze causing sound. We will focus on "gently".

Is the use of this adverb the BEST way to describe what you're trying to show? OR...is its use the EASIEST way to describe what is going on?

I tend to think its the latter. Adverbs are efficient as modifiers, shortening how a concept is relayed in prose, but they lack punch. Wouldn't it read better if you described the effects of the wind? The sound that leaves make when rusting against one another...the way starlight poked through the canopy as the branches moved with the wind...the feel of the soft breeze on a character's face. All of these things, and many others, could be utilized to show us the breeze is gentle without just coming out and saying "it was gentle". 

Let your reader experience these stimuli. Employ all of the senses. Allow the reader to reach their own understanding that it's a gentle breeze. Your work will be much more powerful and create an emotional response that you just can't achieve by taking the easy path and writing words like "gently."

EDIT: As a final point. It is my view that you get more flavor from powerful description that you can with adverbs. Experiment. Try writing without adverbs. Challenge yourself to find new & creative ways to impart the same concepts. You may be surprised at what you find.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 7, 2013)

T.Allen and I are of a similar opinion on adverbs in general, and, with this post, I don't seek to contradict what he said as much as to add a wee bit of nuance:

"Best" has a lot of definitions.  Sometimes, the easy, brief, way is what is best for your story because alternates can involve devoting much more story space to convey a concept.  More story space = more emphasis and more importance.  If a concept is necessary but not necessarily important, devoting extra words to it may not be advisable, thus making the adverb use, perhaps, a better option.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 7, 2013)

> I think "the" canopy is correct here; "a" would suggest the woods have more than one canopy which I don't think is right.



I'm going to stick with my original assertation here.  It's a near thing 'cause I get what you mean, but, to me, the connotation of "the" implies that the reader has already been introduced to the canopy or, at the very least, can deduce the existence of one.



> I think the answer is: it depends. If the author's intent is to emphasize the overall silence and that the only sound is cracking and crunching, the original version is better.



If that is the author's intent, the author could find a more active way of achieving his intent


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 7, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> More story space = more emphasis and more importance.  If a concept is necessary but not necessarily important, devoting extra words to it may not be advisable, thus making the adverb use, perhaps, a better option.



Agreed, especially on the point of story space. Although, I think you could still be relatively succinct without the adverb use...not as succinct, I admit.

I do wonder though, if a concept is not necessarily important, is it deserving of mention at all? If not important, why even write about it? What types of concepts would be considered "necessary but not necessarily important"?

P.S. I realize we've covered this in the past but it's an interesting consideration for the OPs goal.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 7, 2013)

Generally, I feel you're best off using active voice, but using passive voice is fine to achieve an effect, if the author is aware of it and doing it consciously. It's not automatically the wrong approach.

Approaching the two examples with an aim toward making minimal changes to the original, I'd go with:

1) *A soft breeze blew, silently swaying branches back and forth.
*
You don't need "gently." You already said it was soft, and if the branches are swaying silently I'd say that backs up the impression of a gentle breeze. You could remove "back and forth" if you want to get further away from the original.

2) *People moved through the forest, nimbly maneuvering between the bushes and trees.
*The two sentences, as changed above, are fine.


----------



## Devor (Feb 7, 2013)

Androxine Vortex said:


> Night was coming. Beams of orange light pierced through the (tall) canopy of the woods, casting (dark) shadows across the ground. A soft breeze was blowing, gently and silently swaying branches (on the trees) back and forth. The only sound came from cracking twigs and crunching leaves being trampled underfoot. People were moving through the forest, nimbly maneuvering between the bushes and the trees. They moved with a great haste because they knew that night was coming.



Try this:

_Night neared. Beams of orange light pierced through the canopy, casting shadows across the underbrush. A soft breeze blew, branches swayed, and the only sound came from the cracking twigs and crunching leaves trampled underfoot. People hurried through the forest, maneuvering between the bushes and the trees, knowing that night was near._

Also, the word _people_ is your biggest problem in this paragraph, not any of the adverbs.  "People" is not specific enough to generate a clear image.  Who are they?  Peasants?  Townsmen?  Farmers?  Trespassers?  Evacuees?  The image is too vague.  You had a similar problem with words like "ground" and "moved" that were easier to fix with the context you've provided.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 7, 2013)

> do wonder though, if a concept is not necessarily important, is it deserving of mention at all? If not important, why even write about it? What types of concepts would be considered "necessary but not necessarily important"?



To my mind, the concept of "necessary but not necessarily important" (Do I have to use quotes if I'm quoting myself?  Is it a bit arrogant to quote myself?) boils down to such an example (created on the fly, so probably full of holes; bear with me):

Mary is a street waif.  Her scene goal is to get food 'cause she's hungry.

From a plot/story standpoint, though, the subtext of the scene is setting up some kind of metaphoric struggle that will poetically emphasize her plight and symbolize her fight against the Big Bad to come.

The scene goal, hunger, is important for immediate tension.  However, the focus that I want to come through in the scene is the subtext.  If I emphasize the hunger, it takes away from my larger picture goal.  Hence, I just set up the scene by saying she's hungry instead of going into intense detail about it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 7, 2013)

Devor said:


> Night neared. Beams of orange light pierced through the canopy, casting shadows across the underbrush. A soft breeze blew, branches swayed, and the only sound came from the cracking twigs and crunching leaves trampled underfoot. People hurried through the forest, maneuvering between the bushes and the trees, knowing that night was near.



I prefer the way this re-write reads. The only revisions I'd suggest here would be a change in the first & last sentences. A simple replacement of the "to be" verb "was" with the verb "drew" or a similar active verb. Not a major deal though. Also, I'd cut the first sentence, "Night neared.", as it is redundant with the last sentence.

People hurried through the forest, maneuvering between the bushes and the trees, knowing that night drew near.

Of course, depending on the effect you're after, a different word than maneuvering may have better effect. As it was written, I get the impression these characters are trying to avoid brushing against trees and bushes.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 7, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> To my mind, the concept of "necessary but not necessarily important" (Do I have to use quotes if I'm quoting myself?  Is it a bit arrogant to quote myself?) boils down to such an example (created on the fly, so probably full of holes; bear with me):
> 
> Mary is a street waif.  Her scene goal is to get food 'cause she's hungry.
> 
> ...



This is where we differ then. In your example, I feel that if you're mentioning her hunger as some form of characterization that will create an understanding within the reader about how Mary will deal with larger events. If do, then this is important. It serves a specific goal towards advancing the story, and therefore, is deserving of at least some sensory description of her hunger.

Still, I completely agree that the space devoted to description should directly correlate to the concept's importance.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 7, 2013)

> I understand what you mean by resisting the urge to cut too much, risking the loss of "flavor". However, I feel the only time an adverb should be used in prose is when it is the BEST word to describe what you trying to impart. In my opinion, these are rare, but it does happen. Others will disagree.



I'll agree, both for stylistic and practical reasons.  Adverbs Are Bad is a fairly standard piece of advice from creative writing courses & teachers.  Many established authors such as Stephen King suggest things like one adverb per chapter or even one adverb per book!  A common suggestion is that beginning authors work on finding alternatives whenever they have a word that ends in -ly (though adverbs don't always end in -ly).  As always, good writers break such rules when they should be broken, but starting out it's not a bad rule of thumb. 

More practically, I can imagine that busy editors might unthinkingly apply the Rule of No Adverbs even when breaking the rule makes sense.  So if you're a first-timer wanting to break in, I suspect it makes sense to follow the Rule closely if you hope to get published.

Now the classic flip side of the Rule is that "To boldly go where no man has gone before" sounds lame without the adverb.  



> Wouldn't it read better if you described the effects of the wind?



It would certainly read longer.  It might read better.  Showing is very often better than telling but there are plenty of reasons to tell instead of show.  My suspicion is that several sentences here about the various effects of the wind would be a distraction from the fact that people are hurrying through the woods because Night Is Coming.  I suppose ultimately that depends on what the author wants the scene to be about...


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 7, 2013)

Night neared vs Night was coming

I think we need the OP's view on this one.  My impression was that (s)he wants to build a sense of menace that Night Was Coming through repetition.  "Night neared" just doesn't have any sense of menace in my mind.  Entirely possible I've completely misread the original.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 7, 2013)

Makes me think of George Martin changing "Winter is Coming" to "Winter Nears."

The former does have more of a foreboding feeling, and if that's the effect I wanted I'd stick with it. If not, I'd go with T.Allen.Smith's version.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 7, 2013)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> My suspicion is that several sentences here about the various effects of the wind would be a distraction from the fact that people are hurrying through the woods because Night Is Coming.  I suppose ultimately that depends on what the author wants the scene to be about...



I didn't mean to imply the use of several sentences about the effects of the breeze. I meant the use of one descriptive sentence instead of the word "gently". I offered 3 sentences as examples only to illustrates that the same effects can be achieved with the use of different senses.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 7, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Makes me think of George Martin changing "Winter is Coming" to "Winter Nears."
> 
> The former does have more of a foreboding feeling, and if that's the effect I wanted I'd stick with it. If not, I'd go with T.Allen.Smith's version.



It certainly sounds more ominous & I agree completely, if the author intends "Night" to be an ominous cause of action and tension, almost an entity in and of itself. That wasn't what i gathered in reading the passage.

In GRRM's books, the Stark family motto "Winter is Coming", refers to winters that last dozens of years, filled with all sorts of terrible creatures, and the prospective death of countless humans through slaughter or starvation. Winter here, is referred to like a being, a creature coming to invade the southern lands.

As Neb said, it largely depends on the authors concept of "night" in this passage.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 7, 2013)

> I didn't mean to imply the use of several sentences about the effects of the breeze. I meant the use of one descriptive sentence instead of the word "gently". I offered 3 sentences as examples only to illustrates that the same effects can be achieved with the use of different senses.



Ah, got it.  Apologies for the misread and agreed.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 7, 2013)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> Ah, got it.  Apologies for the misread and agreed.



None needed. My fault for not being clear.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Feb 7, 2013)

Thank you everyone for your posts! I made some revisions but it's not finalized yet.

I am keeping, "Night was coming." (I plan on keeping it this way, see Steerpike's post on page 2) Night is an ominous thing in my story, in fact, it is critical to the plot.

I understand that as Devor pointed out, "people" isn't a very descriptive word. This is the very first paragraph of the story so the following paragraphs are about who those people are, and why they are in a hurry.

I like Devor's version though I think I would change the "A soft breeze blew, branches swayed, and the only sound came from the cracking twigs and crunching leaves trampled underfoot." I for some reason don't really like flow with the commas in this but hey, that's just my personal pref.

Can someone help me better understand the difference between passive and active voice and maybe provide some examples?


EDIT: Another question, and I know it's hard to answer because everyone has their own preferance but should I try to hack down every single sentence to be as short and concise as possible? I am trying to cut down on adverb usage because it actually gives you more options for description. But do you think it is "bad" for a writter to chop his/her sentences down to the minimum amount of words? For example, Devor posted, "Night neared. Beams of orange light pierced through the canopy, casting shadows across the underbrush." Would it be "bad" to add in, "...pierced though the canopy *of the woods*, casting shadows...

I'm just worried that if I go to submit my work and an editor thinks that a sentence could have been written in six words instead of seven I'll get rejected. Sorry if this sounds like a silly question but I have no experience in submitting.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 7, 2013)

How to spot passive voice (the general idea):
1) Look for any "to be" verbs - was, were, would, had, etc. these can often (but not always) be an indicator of passivity.

2) Does the subject of the sentence receive, instead of perform, the verb's action? If so, it's passive

3) Is the sentence ended with "by INSERT NAME, PRONOUN, OR NOUN." The preposition "by" can also signal passive voice.

Simple examples:

Active - John mailed the letter.

Passive - The letter was mailed by John.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Passive - They ran towards the cells where the Duke's political prisoners were being held.

Active - The Duke held political prisoners in the lower dungeons. They ran off in that direction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

*Forgive the hasty examples, they're off the cuff but I think you get the idea. The subject of the sentence should perform the action if you want it written in active voice.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 7, 2013)

Regarding active versus passive: As T.Allen wrote, there's a technical definition, and there are times to use both.

In the post where I mentioned not being passive, however, I actually meant that I want you to use active verbs, not that you shouldn't use passive voice.

Example:

He was walking down the street.

That sentence is passive.  He existed in a state of walking down the street.  Other examples:

He started to walk...
He could walk...

It is my contention that having your character be more active is more compelling, in most cases to the reader:

He walked down the street.

Better:

He strode
He ran
He sprinted

Try this sometime: Pull out all your verbs and study them.  If you have a bunch of was, could, started, looked, seemed, etc, your writing is pretty passive.  If, for the most part, you have good, strong action verbs, I believe that is better.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 7, 2013)

> Another question, and I know it's hard to answer because everyone has their own preferance but should I try to hack down every single sentence to be as short and concise as possible?



The question isn't to be as short and concise as possible, it's to not use unnecessary words.  The goal is to get rid of words that don't add anything to your work.

For example:

Eliminate all of the unnecessary words.

What does the "of" add?

Eliminate all the unnecessary words.

What does the "all" add?

Eliminate the unnecessary words.

That says the same thing as the first sentence but with fewer words.

In your example:

piereced through the canopy of the woods

By saying "canopy," you evoke the image of trees.  Thus "of the woods" is redundant and should be cut.

I think "through" is just as egregiously bad as "of the woods," though.



> I'm just worried that if I go to submit my work and an editor thinks that a sentence could have been written in six words instead of seven I'll get rejected. Sorry if this sounds like a silly question but I have no experience in submitting.



If your writing and story are otherwise strong enough, it probably won't make that much difference.  I think, however, that strong technique is the result of the taking care of a lot of small things and that failing to do so can result in a poorer evaluation of your work.

The question is: in your quest to become a better writer, is learning the correct application of this technique the best use of your time?  Probably not.  I think it's an important lesson to learn, and you should try to incorporate it.  If you want the best bang for your buck, though, focus on:

Showing the story through the eyes of a relatable character
Creating the proper level of tension
Creating the proper level of emotion

I think mastering those three objectives will bring you a lot closer to getting published than mastery of technique assuming your technique isn't completely unreadable.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 7, 2013)

Here's some more help in detecting passivity that another Scribe taught me on these forums.

If you use MS Word, you can set your spelling & grammar check to detect & mark passive voice. It's an awesome tool when learning how to write in active voice. Recognizing passivity quickly aids that process.


----------



## Devor (Feb 7, 2013)

Androxine Vortex said:


> EDIT: Another question, and I know it's hard to answer because everyone has their own preferance but should I try to hack down every single sentence to be as short and concise as possible? I am trying to cut down on adverb usage because it actually gives you more options for description. But do you think it is "bad" for a writter to chop his/her sentences down to the minimum amount of words? For example, Devor posted, "Night neared. Beams of orange light pierced through the canopy, casting shadows across the underbrush." Would it be "bad" to add in, "...pierced though the canopy *of the woods*, casting shadows...



It's not about sentence length.  Several of the sentences I offered are actually longer than the originals.  It's about whether the added words add anything new.  A _canopy_, for instance, is the top layer of a forest.  Explaining, "Ohh, this is the canopy _of the woods_" is superfluous.  It's wasted space.  That information was already stated when you said _canopy_.

Sentence length and structure should vary within most paragraphs to maintain flow.

If "people" is as specific as you can get, then you should give their actions more description.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 7, 2013)

I think BWFoster's advice is spot on.  Good characters, good tension, good emotion (and I would add good plotting) buys a lot of forgiveness.  Too many adverbs, show vs tell, unnecessary words...these are all things that a good editor can help a writer fix as long as the raw material is there.  Plenty of books and stories get published that break these rules (and in many cases sell lots of copies).

I will say that in regards to "canopy", I would argue that in this case "of the woods" serves a purpose.  Since this is the second sentence and it isn't yet established that we're in the woods, canopy on its own could be confusing as it might mean "of the outdoor restaurant" or "of the front door" or "of the jungle".

I try to cut words where possible but I also like to remind myself that no reader knows or follows the story as carefully as the writer.  You can mention something about setting or character in one line and think you're done, but IMO there's no harm in repeating it or re-emphasizing it a few lines or paragraphs later to help remind the reader and make it easier for them to follow the story.  So basically cut unnecessary words but be generous in deciding if something is necessary.


----------



## wordwalker (Feb 7, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> He was walking down the street.
> 
> That sentence is passive.  He existed in a state of walking down the street.
> ...
> Try this sometime: Pull out all your verbs and study them.  If you have a bunch of was, could, started, looked, seemed, etc, your writing is pretty passive.  If, for the most part, you have good, strong action verbs, I believe that is better.



Actually, there's one use I like to use the "was walking" forms for: when I want to emphasize the sense of the exact moment, that just now he's right in the middle of the action. Eg "He was walking away from his sister's when he remembered..." or "The guard spun around but, to his relief, his lord was walking away unharmed."

Although, like we've been saying about adverbs, there are always more involved ways to create the same effect as this-- and each time means its own decision on whether those ways are worth the further effort and space. And like adverbs, these passives do harm not when they pop up now and then but when they start lying thick on the ground.


----------

