Can we talk about adverbs?

[Queshire]

Eh, there's at least one benefit to the rule. If you're making an effort to avoid adverbs then you're paying attention to word choice.

 

[piperofyork]

Readers don't care. If your writing is good then readers will just keep reading and buying. For proof, look no further then the best selling book series of all time, Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling uses adverbs all over the place, including in dialogue tags and she holds several records in terms of sales.

I couldn't help thinking something similar yesterday. I was reading Mistborn and saw unnecessary adverbs in dialogue tags right and left...yet it's a best seller. That's not to say I think the market should determine craft standards, but there is an interesting tension there.

 

[Penpilot]

See, I think the first version is far better because it gets to the heart of the matter a lot faster and feels much more as if I'm in the character's head. This is why I love writing.

But you see, it all depends on a lot of different factors, character voice, context, and what exactly one wants to achieve. Sometimes brevity is good because it moves the story past the boring parts. But for the parts that have more than a surface level job to do, it doesn't put one into the moment. It says little about character and relationships. To put it another way. Sometimes a statement of fact will do. Other times, one has to present an argument.

 

[Maker of Things Not Kings]

Wow! A lot of people want to talk about adverbs!

I avoid them as much a possible, but I was taught to do so it's become very natural now after so many years. Today, if I am listening to an audio book, I hear every one and, even when used well, I feel they sound weird.

What bothers me in writing, and this was prevalent in pre 2000 writing, but still exists here and there today, is when an adverb is used in a way that you cannot help but question the reality of the action expressed, such as: (and this is an actual published example)

The shopkeeper sighed lazily.

When I read that, or any similar use of an impossible adverb, I stop dead in my tracks. HOW in the world does one sigh lazily? I have never heard such a sigh in person, never imagined such a sigh as a writer. In such cases, I agree with the popular assessment it's more an instance of writers who, unfortunately, write lazily.

As for piperofyork's original example,

For example, "She breathed deeply" seems clear

There is nothing really off-putting about it, I suppose, but in addition to the above posters questioning of what she breathed deeply, I'd ask, for how long? A single breath? Two? Ten? So yes, some readers won't mind them at all, which is why they still get used.

Today, I think reading audiences are becoming more immersed in well-crafted prose, so I can't see why it would hurt to learn how to replace adverbs with better phrasing whenever possible.

Sometimes writers turn to them in the service of word economy, which is another thing we strive for, and that's useful in most cases of editing but, for me, not worth it when it comes to 95% of adverbs.

 

[Stevie]

I couldn't help thinking something similar yesterday. I was reading Mistborn and saw unnecessary adverbs in dialogue tags right and left...yet it's a best seller. That's not to say I think the market should determine craft standards, but there is an interesting tension there.

It is an interesting tension. And further proof (as if it's needed!) that best sellers don't need to be well written. Which kind of raises the question of what good writing is. Be interesting to get hold of a recent debut novel to see what the 'state of the art' is outwith established authors, who probably get more leeway from agents and editors than new authors regards 'the rules'.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Adverbs are junk, Harry Potter is YA, so, like MG books grabs a big old pass, so much is to do with audience. This also tends to depend on personal goals. If you want to be a “great writer” get rid of most of them. If you want to sell lots of books it may or may not matter, and other factors will determine your success. -ly adverbs are not great writing, period, and what people tend to think they are achieving by using them is in fact reversed. Modifying a verb tends to make it squishier, much in the same way as adding too many adjectives to a noun. One easy thing to note: no one ever said “Gee, that book would’ve been great if only it had more adverbs” while people will hammer books with too many adverbs no matter how many copies are sold… See Potter and 50 Shades of Hideous Writing.

NOTE: adverbs in dialogue I consider inconsequential. Dialogue is just fine with or without them. Dialogue tags are another matter, again depending on Target Audience (NA, YA, MG, Children's books will gain more of a pass, and aren’t often considered literary anyhow)

A paper I read by a Harvard bloke who was studying Hemingway spoke of Ernie’s use of adverbs and broke the -ly adverbs into two forms, and I wish I could recall what he called them, but the gist was weak and strong adverbs. Weak -ly adverbs achieve the opposite of their intent or achieve nothing, making a verb less concrete than it started, while strong adverbs actually (<—a weak adverb, it does nothing to strengthened) strengthened the verb. I would argue that there were even fewer strong adverbs than this guy was giving Ernie credit for, heh heh. The only good reason I’ve seen for -ly adverb use outside of dialogue is to convey a quick meaning to something of limited importance and/or as an economy of words.

FULL Disclosure: I write with way fewer adverbs than Hemingway, and even back in the day when I defended them, I wrote with about the same number as Ernie. Burt, I have no idea about his writing, since he spends more time with a banana in his ear to keep the alligators away.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Some readers do care. I won’t read anything peppered with adverbs like Potter, but on a side note, I also tend to find excess adverb use as a strong indicator of a weak writer and it’s more than just adverbs I can’t stand which will end my reading. So, in many cases if perusing the sample chapters it’s one of the strikes i use against whether I give the book an additional chance. It’s a strong correlary.

Anecdotally, in the readers choice award Eve of Snows won they had the full list of books in the competition, and I pegged the top five finishers (not in order) without reading more than the first page and dismissed most after a paragraph or two.

If seeking a little more scientific analysis, Nabokov’s Favorite Word was Mauve does a nice job of exploring adverb use.

Readers don't care. If your writing is good then readers will just keep reading and buying. For proof, look no further then the best selling book series of all time, Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling uses adverbs all over the place, including in dialogue tags and she holds several records in terms of sales.

The thing to keep in mind that it all comes down to execution. If you use them simply because you're lazy and there would be better words to use then use those. If your style is one where moseyed or meandered sounds great then use those, otherwise there is nothing wrong with walked slowly. As Ankari showed, changing the words changes the meaning, and if the adverb conveys the exact meaning you need then use that.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

“She breathed deeply.”

In a vacuum there’s no way to tell for certain, but sitting here like this makes me think it’s a weak insert to break up dialogue. If tempted to write this, I would ask why the heck it matters that this person took a deep breath. If it doesn’t matter, nix it, and if it does matter, make sure to point out why it matters and avoid the -ly. It’s not the worst use of an -ly, but, what does it achieve?

Another point to why not to use too many -ly is the natural echo that -ly makes in the head of readers. It might be subconscious, but it’s there.

 

[S J Lee]

I see a lot of people say they don't like to read adverbs, and I see no one saying they DO like to read adverbs . . . so I reduce my use of adverbs / replace them with something else. Note that "Did he ever go there?" is still an adverb (I think) just not a -ly adverb. Don't be afraid to adjust your writing to what readers want - choose your battles (or choose them wisely? lol). Just like 3rd P omniscient annoys a lot of people, but I never see someone saying "I didn't like it cos it was in 3rd P Ltd" --> so you should avoid it unless you MUST use it . . . though in LOGIC there is nothing wrong with it as a way to tell a story.

Mind you, "Did he go there?" vs "Did he ever go there?" are not the same meaning, so that adverb stays, IMHO
"Did he ever go there?" vs "Did he go there before, once or more?" is not an improvement . . .and my dictionary tells me "once" is an adverb also!
A lot of people who "hate adverbs" use them a lot more than they think.

I would agree that "he walked quickly" could be replaced with "he walked" or "he jogged/ran/trotted", but "he walked at speed" is not an improvement, and some grammar guru will say "at speed" is an adverbial phrase anyway?

But "he walked over" is NOT the same thing as "he walked" --> keep that one? Or use "He approached me"? Is this the same shade of meaning?

I agree that --> "That's barbaric!" Hermione said, angrily = an abomination, simply not what I want to read. I've never read a HP book and suspect I never will, and JKR couldn't care less as she builds a castle out of money.

The OP wrote: Although I see how they can be overused or used unnecessarily --> I didn't mind this. "used in a way which is not needed" is not an improvement, and again, is an adverbial phrase?
Me, I have no problem with "she breathed deeply" -- the context will tell me if she has just exercised / is meditating/ trying not to lose her temper. It's fine. "She breathed" just looks odd. "She exhaled, trying not to lose her temper" might work, but is she the POV character?
It's obvious she is breathing air unless you say otherwise.

Similarly, "Jesus took water from the well and drank" - it is obvious he drank water. Anyone trying to argue he drew water and then opened a flask of alcohol and drank that is on the wrong track.
-----------------------------------

Stephen King goes on a lot about adverbs. I think what he "really" (lol) meant was --> avoid "walked quickly" and "said angrily", but OTHER adverbs are ok if they give you a meaning you do not have if you leave them out.

Stephen King on Writing, Fear, and the Atrocity of Adverbs
KING SAYS: 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, OF COURSE, LOOK AT HOW KING WRITES!
Stephen King on Gun Control and Violence
KING WRITES:
Here’s how it shakes out.

First there’s the shooting. Few of the trigger-pullers are middle-aged, and practically none are old. Some are young men; many are just boys. The Jonesboro, Arkansas, school shooters were 13 and 11.

Why, why, why did King write "practically none?" "only one or two" and "almost none are" are still adverbs. But he could have written "Very few are..." BUT HE DIDN'T. And "just" is an adverb too? Was it needed?

A bit like George Orwell writing "the passive IS TO BE AVOIDED" --> lol, what more can I say?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Adverb loathing is based on the -ly. Other adverbs tend to be ignored, in large part this is because of the echo of -ly that sticks in the brain. Adverbial phrases are also needed because verbs must be modified or you end up pretty danged generic.

Nabukov’s Favorite Word was Mauve makes this statistical point with… well, let’s use King and Hemingway. King uses 5.5% adverbs and Hemingway 5.8% if you consider ALL adverbs. So, where does 50 Shades of Horrible Writing comes in? at 4.8%! Shocking! Except that the real issue is -ly… So, how do things add up then? King comes in at 105 per 10,000, E.L James 155, Rowling 140, and good old Ernest 80. L. James Rice (Me!) rolls in at a relatively insane 12-20 per 10,000 and most of those are in dialogue. Unfortunately, NFWwM does not indicate -ly by dialogue and outside dialogue.

But as mentioned earlier there is a paper online, I think from a Harvard guy, who breaks down Hemingways use of adverbs further, making a point that -ly adverbs aren’t created equal. And here he found that Hemingway’s use of “weak” adverbs is even lower.

EDIT: Prowritingaid also tracks something called “weak adverbs” and claims Hemingway at 3.8/1000 words. As side notes, breathed deeply is considered a bad or weak adverb by prowritingaid, and I tend to agree.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I agree that --> "That's barbaric!" Hermione said, angrily = an abomination, simply not what I want to read. I've never read a HP book and suspect I never will, and JKR couldn't care less as she builds a castle out of money.

I'll say it here, I do like reading Adverbs. Not too many, but if they're used well then they're great. It's probably because I'm a bit slow and need to be hit over the head with what the characters are actually feeling or how they're reacting. You see, in the example I can really use "angrily" to help me understand that she's angry. Yes, the ! helps as well, but as I said, sometimes I need to be hit over the head with it...

It's a taste thing (just like 3rd person omniscient which I love if done well).

 

[Ned Marcus]

I like to cut them, but some you just need.

 

[S J Lee]

Indeed, it is not a matter of grammar, but only of taste.

If enough people lke adverbs, then they become "good" writing.

Me, I wonder if the prejudice ONLY against "ly" adverbs is "fair" - AND a lot of people don't mind "only"!
I'm not going to argue with D's facts quoted above, but consider the following:

Jakk looked across the boxing ring. His young opponent was merely a boy
vs
Jakk looked across the boxing ring. His young opponent was barely a man
vs
Jakk looked across the boxing ring. His opponent a boy, nothing more
vs
Jakk looked across the boxing ring. His opponent was younger than he had expected, not a man full-grown
vs
Jakk looked across the boxing ring. His opponent was just a boy
vs
Jakk looked across the boxing ring. His opponent was young, not quite a man

To ME, these are all pretty much the same - equally good or equally bad. no. 4 is a bit wordy, and I do not see it as an improvement. Why is "merely a boy" bad, but "just a boy" not so bad? They are both adverbs. Why is "only" not as bad as "merely"? Or maybe they ARE equally "bad"? Why do you give adverbial phrases a pass, but condemn -ly adverbs which take up a lot less ink? Isn't brevity a good thing? I ask myself this all the time.

I'm not interested in arguing which is good or bad objectively, but interested in how many readers feel strongly EITHER WAY. Thanks for the vote in favour of adverbs, Prince!

 

[S J Lee]

It's a lot like the rules which say "exclamation marks = bad writing" (Sorry, Tolkien and Austen)
or "parentheses = bad writing in FICTION" (Sorry, Austen)
or the nonsense about split infinitives (Sorry, Star Trek)

My own "scratching my head" moment is the strange idea some writers have that passives are ALWAYS inferior. As I said, Orwell wrote "the passive is to be avoided" ...! Or, as Strunk and White's style guide said, "Many a tame (passive) sentence CAN BE MADE more lively by ..." lol cubed...!

Again, I like this video with Pinker explaining why passives are better than active if used correctly - we start the sentence with what has already been referred to, and then add new information, to allow easier understanding by the reader, which is a priceless thing - but this "put what has already been referred to into the first part of your next sentence" idea means sometimes you must use the passive. He analyses the Wiki plot summary of Oedipus Rex, which has a lot of passives, and he approves of it --> if you are prejudiced against passives, ask yourself if it IS only a prejudice.

Just watch 24.20 to 30.30 --> "our mind's eye is looking at the baby, and classic style (get a clear mental image of what is happening) then requires we start our next sentence with the baby, not the shepherd or the person who abandoned the baby..."

Sorry to derail the thread, but don't be afraid to quesion your beliefs...they may only be prejudices....

 

[Ankari]

Jakk looked across the boxing ring. His young opponent was barely a man

To ME, these are all pretty much the same -
Prince!

All your examples conveyed the same information except the one above. It suggests the opponent was a man, certainly not a boy, but just barely so that it deserved notice.

As for why adverbs are disliked. When you consider the phrase "She breathed deeply," you, as the reader are left wondering of what did she breathe deeply? The thought is incomplete. Now consider "She breathed deeply the scent of fresh baked bread," or "she breathed deeply to undo the tension in her chest." those tell you the "what."

This is why the "rule" was created. Writers opted for the first because they are still in the beginnings of their learning and depend mostly on the personal forms of communication. When speaking person-to-person, people can use nonverbal communication to fill in the gape, or use shared context.

Writers need to learn to excise this instinctual form of communication and write clearly.

 

[FifthView]

The shopkeeper sighed lazily.

When I read that, or any similar use of an impossible adverb, I stop dead in my tracks. HOW in the world does one sigh lazily?

Here's how I would read that or similar statements: The person making the statement, i.e. the narrator, is making a value judgment of some sort.

In this case, there's an assumption of laziness. Whoever is narrating is assuming an ability to see inside the person who is sighing, an ability to "read" the person, to know that laziness is a factor.

Sure, this particular narrator may be way off base—"HOW in the world does one sigh lazily?"—but the point may not be so much about a lazy sigh, whatever that is, and be more about a sort of ascription of laziness onto the shopkeeper by the narrator.

Do we believe such ascriptions? Sure, sometimes. An omniscient narrator may be able to see inside these other characters being described in this way. Heck, non-omniscient narrators might also come across as truthful; the reader might begin to assume such a narrator is accurate, the sighing was lazy or the shopkeeper is in a lazy state or whatever.

I think adverbs may work fine in some circumstances. The real problem isn't that they are inherently lazy (heh) but that they always, always carry with them this factor of value judgments being made by the narrator.

A lot of the time, adverbs come across as cases of bad head-hopping. When the POV is a limited 3rd person, or else a first-person narration when that narrator is otherwise displaying severe lack of awareness, one might question those cases of lazily, sleepily, angrily, shyly, disgustedly, whatever. The narrator is inside that other person? Can know he/she is lazy, sleepy, angry....etc.? Even if we don't take a moment to ask those questions consciously, we still get that impression of head hopping.

Another set of adverbs, like slowly or loudly or solidly, seem like...heh, even lazier choices, from a writing perspective. These, also, are value judgments, but a narrator can reasonably be assumed to make them accurately. The narrator doesn't need to be in the head of another character to know that other is speaking loudly. But because they are value judgments, they get between the reader and the thing or action being described. In other words, I as reader am getting a second-hand story, not experiencing the story for myself, when a narrator tells me something happened loudly or something leaked slowly. Besides which, these are relative value judgments. How loud is loudly? How slow is slowly? I think readers enjoy making these value judgments for themselves, as if they are present to witness those things. I think that's often the charm of reading a fictionalized account.

But sometimes the charm is the voice of the narrator more than the events, or a more even mix, so....getting those value judgments might be what is sought.

I suppose there might be another set of adverbs, like fearsomely, that a narrator might use and still seem accurate. In the case of that last, if a narrator suddenly fears someone acting fearsomely toward him, well, I can believe it, heh. He's able to evaluate those things, and maybe hearing him acknowledge this effect upon his person is a good thing for the narration. OTOH, again, this is a second-hand account, so your mileage might vary.

 

[piperofyork]

As for why adverbs are disliked. When you consider the phrase "She breathed deeply," you, as the reader are left wondering of what did she breathe deeply? The thought is incomplete. Now consider "She breathed deeply the scent of fresh baked bread," or "she breathed deeply to undo the tension in her chest." those tell you the "what."

Thank you, Ankari. To play devil's advocate, what about a case in which the surrounding narrative has made it clear that the character has been guided into a room to meditate. The sights and sounds and scents are all provided in the initial description. Pivoting to the character, who, we will say, is very pleased to be in such a serene space, the texts reads: "He found a comfortable space and, sitting with eyes closed, breathed deeply." I don't meditate, but I'm fairly sure deep breathing is a big part of it. With the detail provided in the surrounding narrative, it doesn't seem necessary to add more 'what' - yet the word 'deeply' is still doing work here while avoiding prolixity: he's not just breathing; he's breathing in the manner associated with meditation.

At any rate, I'm not trying to be combative. I'm just playing devil's advocate. If the surrounding narrative clarifies all the 'whats' and an adverb adds detail, is the pressure to excise it still so great?

 

[FifthView]

Readers don't care. If your writing is good then readers will just keep reading and buying. For proof, look no further then the best selling book series of all time, Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling uses adverbs all over the place, including in dialogue tags and she holds several records in terms of sales.

Rowling is an interesting case. Her style is in a broader style set used by others; i.e., you can find many others doing the same sort of thing.

I remember a lengthy old forum thread where I pointed out that Rowling would sometimes write in omniscient style. The first book's opening chapter is basically a prologue and is entirely in omniscient. I've often felt that the rest, the majority of which focuses on Harry's POV, is still omniscient but subtly so. Imagine an omniscient narrator that chooses to write from the POV of only one character in a novel. The story could be simultaneously both, omniscient and limited in narration, heh. Here's an excerpt from the third chapter of the first HP book:

The repaired alarm clock rang at six o’clock the next morning. Harry turned it off quickly and dressed silently. He mustn’t wake the Dursleys. He stole downstairs without turning on any of the lights.
​

Who is making the value judgments of quickly and silently? Harry just does those things; the narrator is evaluating Harry's actions. A lot of limited third approaches would not do this sort of thing, preferring to stay as much in Harry's head as possible. But here, Rowling pulls back and uses an almost omniscient approach. Rowling does this sort of thing so much throughout the books*, it's part of her style. And many readers simply get used to it, accept it, and maybe even love that style of writing.

*Edit: I mean, not only using adverbs but also other writing tics that feel to me to come from an omniscient style.

 

[piperofyork]

The real problem isn't that they are inherently lazy (heh) but that they always, always carry with them this factor of value judgments being made by the narrator.

Thank you, FifthView. How would you respond to the reply that although what you say certainly applies to many adverbs, it doesn't apply to all of them. For example, in the description "He paced ceaselessly," there doesn't seem to be a narrator's value judgement - the narrator isn't saying whether this is good/bad/right/wrong/worthy of praise or condemnation - rather, it seems to be an objective description of the manner of the pacing. How did he pace? Not intermittently, not haltingly, but ceaselessly. I'm sure there's a better example out there, but the idea is that some adverbs seem to add purely factual/objective detail.

Of course I might be missing something, but I thought it couldn't hurt to mention this.

ADDENDUM: I'm guessing that we're working with different definitions of 'value judgement.' I come from a background in philosophy, where value judgements all imply some tincture of praise or blame, and are distinguished from factual judgements which don't. This is why I can see a value judgement in 'sighed lazily' (laziness bad) but not in 'paced ceaselessly' (a matter of fact: for better or worse, he didn't stop pacing)

 

[FifthView]

Thank you, FifthView. How would you respond to the reply that although what you say certainly applies to many adverbs, it doesn't apply to all of them. For example, in the description "He paced ceaselessly," there doesn't seem to be a narrator's value judgement - the narrator isn't saying whether this is good/bad/right/wrong/worthy of praise or condemnation - rather, it seems to be an objective description of the manner of the pacing.

Is the person who is pacing an immortal? It's not ceaseless pacing, heh. Death, tiredness, the end of the scene and chapter or book will bring a cessation to the pacing. The reader knows this already. The judgment of "ceaseless" is a value judgment.

I would point out that my use of "value judgment" doesn't mean only moral or ethical judgments. If I look across the distance and say my target, the person I am hunting down, is 1.5 kilometers away...well, unless I'm using a very precise measuring device, I'm making a judgment of the value there. An admittedly clumsy example here, but to apply it to your case, ceaselessly is a judgment about the character of the pacing, or the value of its scope, that must obviously come from an opinionated narrator. A narrator capable of making such judgments. Who is watching this pacing character, and for how long, to know that it is ceaseless? Heh.

Edit: Another term that might be less cumbersome would be evaluation. Who is evaluating the quality? Adverbs always introduce this question. Some intrude less on the narration; some, more.

Edit #2: Ah, I see you addressed this terminology with an addendum.